AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 4125 ::2016 (4) AJR 429 ::2016 (4) AKR 827 ::(2017) 1 MadLW(Cri) 329 ::(2016) 4 BomCR(Cri) 264 ::(2016) 3 CriLR(Raj) 925 ::(2016) 2 Orissa LR 869 ::(2016) 4 DLT(CRL) 264 ::(2016) 4 CurCriR 100 ::(2016) 3 AllCriR 2691 ::2016 CriLR(SC&MP) 925 ::(2016) 65 OCR 543 ::2016 (9) SCC 598 ::(2016) 4 RecCriR 315 ::(2016) 8 Scale 560 ::2016 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 925 ::(2016) 2 ALD(CRL) 738 ::2017 CalCriLR 1 257 ::(2016) 4 JLJR 41 ::(2017) 1 Raj LW 163 ::(2016) 4 Pat LJR 156 ::(2017) 1 ServLR 531 ::2016 (3) SCC (Cri) 696 ::(2016) 4 AllCriLR 551 ::(2016) 3 UC 1643 ::(2016) 4 Crimes 414 ::(2016) 166 AllIndCas 1 (SC) ::(2016) 96 AllCriC 990 ::(2016) 6 Kant LJ 177

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Karnataka)

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. K. Sikri, N. V. Ramana , JJ

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.156(3)— Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) , S.19— Complaint of corruption against public servant - Order directing further investigation under S. 156 (3) - Cannot be passed in absence of valid sanction. (Para 12) (B) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) , S.19— Sanction to prosecute - Necessity - Accused public servant not holding post which is alleged to have been misused at time of cognizance - Sanction to prosecute, not necessary. In the present case the appellants had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction under S. 19, P.C. Act. Where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check period but had ceased to hold 'that office' or was holding a different office, then a sanction would not be necessary. Where the alleged misconduct is in some different capacity than the one which is held at the time of taking cognizance, there will be no necessity to take the sanction.(Para 18 20) .....