Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C Act) &Section 321 Cr.P.C - When once the Government have applied its mind and issued sanction, it cannot withdraw the sanction on a lame pretext of proceeding with department action against a charged public servant. the competent authority who issued sanction proceedings cannot exercise its power either under Section 19 of P.C. Act or under Section 21 of the Central General Clauses Act or Section 15 of the A.P. General Clauses Act to withdraw the sanction. I endorse the same view. Therefore, in the instant case the Government was not justified in withdrawing the sanction.-2015 Telangana &A.P. MSK LAW REPORT


the prosecution case against the
accused who is charged under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C Act) is that the
complainant was a conductor in APSRTC, Nellore Depot and accused was  
the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S, Nellore during relevant time and
in respect of the complaint given by Swaroopa Raniwife of complainant,
AO initially demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the complainant for not
taking action on the petition of his wife and on the request of the
complainant he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,000/- and on 17.02.2006 at
about 9:30 am at mechanic bunk situated opposite to Nippo Batteries
Factory, Nellore, the accused was caught red-handed while accepting illegal
gratification of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant and hence facing the
charges for the offences stated supra.
b)      The trial Court framed charges and matter is coming up for trial.
c)      While-so, learned Public Prosecutor at that stage filed petition under
Section 321 Cr.P.C submitting that the AO approached Government and
made a representation to drop the criminal case and Government considered
his representation and issued order in G.O.Ms.No.272/SC.A-3/2006-5 dt:
06.07.2007 (Home (SC.A) department) cancelling the sanction order earlier
issued under G.O.Ms.No.272/SC.A3/2006-3 dated 22.09.2006 of Home  
(SC.A) department on the ground that it would meet the ends of justice if the
AO were to face departmental action and in turn, D.G, ACB, A.P issued a
memo vide Rc.No.38/RCT-NNL/2006 dated 01.10.2007 requesting the  
Spl.P.P, ACB to file petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C and therefore, he was
filing the said petition. Learned Special Judge after thorough enquiry
dismissed the petition on the following observations:
         In the withdrawal order the Government has not shown reasons as to
why it came to conclusion to withdraw the criminal case against AO and to
institute departmental action. It is not mentioned as to what material the
Government have collected to conclude to withdraw the case and no such
material is placed before the Court. Learned Spl.P.P simply filed a petition
basing on the orders of the Government without applying his mind and
without showing any grounds for withdrawal of the case. He has not shown
any grounds which will further the ends of justice, public order and peace.
          Hence the revision.-2015 Telangana &A.P. MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.
Sub :- Quash the criminal proceedings
Offence :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997
Summary :-
 The investigation revealed that
clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the
exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually
facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation,
filed the charge-sheet.
  The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded
against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for
short).

    Section 5 of the Act reads as under:
Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with
examination works:
No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a
public examination shall, except where he is permitted by
virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or
cause to be divulged or make known to any other person
any information o…
Keep reading

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

the power of the revenue Court in deciding the disputed questions
of fact.

The application before the Mandal Revenue Officer
was filed under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971).

Thereupon in accordance with the provision contained in the A.P.
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, the Mandal
Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and after giving due
opportunity to the objectors and on detailed consideration of the
revenue records, passed orders on 15.03.1991.
The objection as
to maintainability of such application and the competency of the
Mandal Revenue Officer to decide the disputed questions of fact
with reference to the succession was considered and specifically
rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer.
 In support of his
decision, the Mandal Revenue Officer placed reliance on the
provision contained in Rule 9(1)(a)(i) read with Rule 9(1)(c)(i) of
the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rule…
Keep reading

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

A close perusal of Section 28 would show that though as per this
Section the proceedings under Sec.12, 18 to 23 and offences under Sec. 31 are
governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that is not an inscrutable
rule inasmuch as Sec.28(1) is having a saving clause and also subject to sub-
section(2).  
When we analyse the limitations of Section 28(1) with reference
to the civil nature of the remedies provided under Sec.18 to 22 and saving
provisions under Sec.13 and 23, we can understand that for conducting
enquiry, the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for
each adjournment like in criminal cases.  
It is because, Sec.13 lays down that
the Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12 to
the Protection Officer for serving on the respondent. So for securing the
appearance of respondent, at the first instance, the Magistrate need not, nay
shall not issue warrant. 
Even if the respondents failed to turn up after
receiving notice and file the…
Keep reading