//
archives

central vigilance commission

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946 – the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – No approval from the central government is necessary when the case was monitored by the constitutional court itself = Manohar Lal Sharma …….Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. ……Respondents = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41094

Section 6A of the Delhi Special  Police  Establishment  Act,1946 – the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – No approval from the central government is necessary when the case was monitored by the constitutional court itself = whether  the  approval  of  the  Central  Government  is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special  Police  Establishment  Act,1946 (“DSPE … Continue reading

2G Spectrum case.=whether two orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, while monitoring the investigation of 2G related cases, are liable to be recalled, de hors the rights guaranteed to the Petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India, if aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum case.= No Court, other than the Court seized with the trial, has the power to monitor the proceedings pending before it. Order dated 11.4.2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large backlog of cases in the Courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse of Court’s system by indulging in unnecessary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying the entire trial process. Criminal justice system’s procedure guarantees and elaborateness sometimes give, create openings for abusive, dilatory tactics and confer unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause delay to their advantage. Longer the trial, witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade and evidence will be stale. Taking into consideration all those aspects, this Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger public interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress of the trial. Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable to get on with their lives and business. 29. We fail to see how the principle laid down by this Court in A.R. Antulay’s case (supra) would apply to the facts of these cases. We have found no error in the orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 or on 09.04.2012. Therefore, the question of rectifying any error does not arise. On the other hand, as we have already indicated, the purpose and object of passing those orders was for a larger public interest and for speedy trial, that too on day-to-day basis which has been reflected not only in the various provisions of the PC Act, 1988 but also falls within the realm of judicial accountability. 30. We also find no reason to lay down any guidelines as prayed for by the petitioners in a Court monitored investigation. In a Court monitored investigation, as already pointed out the Court is not expected to interfere with the trial proceedings. The conduct of the trial is the business of the trial judge and not the court monitoring the investigation. A superior court exercising the appellate power or constitutional power, if gives a direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in a specific time by giving direction is not interfering with the trial proceedings but only facilitating the speedy trial, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That being the factual situation in these cases, the principle laid down by this Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh “Lalan” VI and another v. Union of India and others (2006) 1 SCC 356, Brij Narain Singh v. Adya Prasad (2008) 11 SCC 558 and Ankul Chandra Pradhan (supra), are not applicable. 31. We, therefore, find no good reason either to frame guidelines to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to monitoring of criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 or 09.04.2012. Writ Petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed, so also IA Nos.59, 61, 63 and 68 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010.

published in         http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40716     REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.548 OF 2012 Shahid Balwa …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents With WRIT PETITION (C) NO.550, 551, 552 OF 2012, 17 of 2013, and I.A. Nos.59, 61, 63 and 68 IN CIVIL APPEAL … Continue reading

another turn in 2G Scam =By this order we are disposing of the prayer made by the appellants for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department in ‘2G case’.= We, therefore, issue the following directions: (i)In future copies of the report(s) of the investigation conducted by the CBI and other agencies shall be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO.10660 OF 2010   CENTER FOR PIL & OTHERS …….APPELLANTS   VERSUS   UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ……RESPONDENTS   O R D E R   1. By this order we are disposing of the prayer made by the appellants for appointment … Continue reading

At the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit. =Whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, `the 1988 Act’) and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines issued by the

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27535 of 2010) Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Appellant versus Dr. Manmohan Singh and another … Respondents J U D G M E N T G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether … Continue reading

At the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit.

Image via Wikipedia 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27535 of 2010)   Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Appellant   versus   Dr. Manmohan Singh and another … Respondents     J U D G M E N … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,920 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com