advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
public servant
Sec.19 of P.C. Act – Constitutional validity challanged – to avoid delay in sanctioning permission for prosecution against Politicians, M.L.As, M.Ps. and Govt. Officials – Apex court held that it is not possible to hold that the requirement of sanction is unconstitutional, the competent authority has to take a decision on the issue of sanction expeditiously as already observed. A fine balance has to be maintained between need to protect a public servant against mala fide prosecution on the one hand and the object of upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption exists, on the other hand and made some guide lines to the parliament (a) All proposals for sanction placed before any sanctioning authority empowered to grant sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the PC Act must be decided within a period of three months of the receipt of the proposal by the authority concerned. (b) Where consultation is required with the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, and the same is not possible within the three months mentioned in clause (a) above, an extension of one month period may be allowed, but the request for consultation is to be sent in writing within the three months mentioned in clause (a) above. A copy of the said request will be sent to the prosecuting agency or the private complainant to intimate them about the extension of the time-limit. (c) 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 charge-sheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time-limit.”.= WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 305 OF 2007 = Manzoor Ali Khan … Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondent (s) = 2014 – Aug.Part- http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41810
Sec.19 of P.C. Act – Constitutional validity challanged – to avoid delay in sanctioning permission for prosecution against Politicians, M.L.As, M.Ps. and Govt. Officials – Apex court held that it is not possible to hold that the requirement of sanction is unconstitutional, the competent authority has to take a decision on the issue of sanction expeditiously as already observed. A … Continue reading
Sec.182 IPC – wife filed complaint against in-laws – ended in compromise – Husband gave a complaint against wife alleging she filed a false case and register a case under sec.182 – police register the case – sanction was also given – challenged – High court dismissed the petition – Apex court held that To make out a case u/s 182 IPC, the following ingredients are to be proved: (i) An information was given by a person to a public servant. (ii) The information was given by a person who knows or believes such statement to be false. (iii)Such information was given with an intention to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause (a) such public servant to do not to do anything if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, In the present case, the investigating agency has failed to show that the appellant has given information which she was knowing and believing to be false. In the investigation report it has not been reported that the appellant was knowing that the information given is false but still gave the information to harass the respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having failed to make out a case u/s 182 IPC, we are of the opinion that it was a fit case to quash the proceedings u/s 182 IPC. The High Court failed to notice the relevant facts and mechanically dismissed the application u/s 482 Cr.PC.= SANTOSH BAKSHI … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – June. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41712
Sec.182 IPC – wife filed complaint against in-laws – ended in compromise – Husband gave a complaint against wife alleging she filed a false case and register a case under sec.182 – police register the case – sanction was also given – challenged – High court dismissed the petition – Apex court held that To make out a … Continue reading
Defamation = Criminal Trial–Defamation of Public servant in respect of public function–Complaint before Sessions Judge by Public Prosecutor–If required to be signed by the Public servant also–Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), ss.198 and 198-B. =The Public Prosecutor, Kanpur, filed a complaint in the Court of Session, Kanpur, charging the appellants with having published a news item which was false and defamatory of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The complaint complied with the requirements of s. 198-B, Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants contended that the complaint should have complied with the requirements of s. 198 of the Code also and, as it was 64 not signed by the Chief Minister, the Sessions judge had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Held, that it was not necessary for the Chief Minister also to sign the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor. The nonobstante clause ” notwithstanding anything contained in this Code ” in sub-s. (1) of s. 198-B excludes the operation of the other provisions of the Code relating to initiation and trial of the offence of defamation, including s. 198. Sub-section (13) of s. 198-B which provides that the provisions of s. 198-B shall be in addition to and not in derogation of s. 198 merely preserves the right of the person defamed to file a complaint under s. 198. The two sections provide alternative remedies. The provisions in s. 198-B relating to the award of compensation to the accused in case of false and frivolous or vexatious accusation do not affect this conclusion. Normally it is the public servant who moves the Government for taking proceedings and under subs. (5) he is required to be examined as a witness to support the prosecution, and it cannot be said that he has no concern with the lodging of a complaint under s. 198- B. C. B. L. Bhatnagar v. The State, A.I.R. 1958 Bom. 196 and R. Sankar v. The State, I.L.R. (1959) Kerala 195, disapproved.
PETITIONER: P.C. JOSHI AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/10/1960 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. DAS, S.K. CITATION: 1961 AIR 387 1961 SCR (2) 63 ACT: Criminal Trial–Defamation of Public servant in respect of public function–Complaint before Sessions Judge by Public Prosecutor–If required to be signed by the … Continue reading
