Uttar Pradesh government

absence of valid sanction from the competent authority,= Accordingly, the High Court quashed the prosecution of the accused being without valid sanction and, while doing so, observed that the State Government of Uttarakhand shall be at liberty to prosecute the accused after obtaining valid sanction from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.- It was contended before the High Court that the accused being an employee of an undertaking of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, the State Government of Uttarakhand is not competent to grant sanction. This submission found favour with the High Court. The High Court held that the accused being an employee of an undertaking of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and having been repatriated to his parent department, it is the State Government of the Uttar Pradesh which is competent to remove him and to grant necessary sanction. “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-……….. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c)in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.” We are told by Ms. Srivastava that the request of the State Government of Uttarakhand for sanction of prosecution of the accused is still pending before the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, we deem it expedient that the latter takes decision on the request so made, if already not taken, within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion in regard to the merit of the request made by the State Government of Uttarakhand and it shall be decided by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh on its own merit in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action forthwith. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with the aforesaid observation.

Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2013 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1593 of 2007) STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … APPELLANT VERSUS YOGENDRA NATH ARORA …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. Yogendra Nath Arora (hereinafter referred to as … Continue reading →