![]() ![]() Once the date was determined there was no difficulty in determining the authority entitled to dismiss the accused. Section 19 prohibited taking cognizance unless the sanction was granted by the appropriate authority mentioned in Section 19(1), 19(2) of Act. In the alternative, it was submitted that the crucial date for determination of the sanctioning authority would be the date on which the cognizance is taken under the Act of 1988. Therefore appropriate authority would be Central Government as per Section 19(1)(a) of the Act 1988. The applicant should be deemed to be in the cadre of Indian Administrative Services in the year 1984. He was selected by notification dated 14-12-87 and was given the year of allotment with effect from 1983. He pointed out that at the time of grant of sanction on 11-6-97 and subsequently, on the date of taking cognizance, the applicant was posted in the Cadre of Indian Administrative Services having been selected from the quota provided for promotion by selection on the basis of service in the cadre of the State Executive Service. In this revision the counsel for the applicant argued that the sanction under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 was invalid. The Court below has rejected the objection of the applicant that sanction dated 11-6-97 was invalid so far he was liable under the Act of 1988.ĥ. The applicant was one of the persons allegedly involved in the Madhotal Scandal along with so called several dignitaries of the State.Ĥ. He is also charged with forging documents during the transaction. Thus, the applicant is abused official position in this manner. The order of allotment was contrary to Revenue Book Circulars. The order was issued in a clandestine manner without obtaining the signature of the Principal Secretary on the file directing the Collector to hand over the possession. However, with a view to cause wrongful loss to the State and consequent gain to the Motor Parts Welfare Association, Jabalpur the applicant got the order from the Revenue Department issued that possession of plot be handed over to the Association. It is alleged that the applicant knew the order of Revenue Minister Shri Muni Prasad Shukla. The applicant is alleged to have acted contrary to the order of Revenue Minister Muni Prasad Shukla who did not grant exemption on 3-8-1984 stating that the power could be exercised by the Collector. ![]() It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant by his acts and omissions helped Motor Parts Dealers Welfare Association, Jabalpur to obtain 40 acres of surplus land situate at Madhotal, Jabalpur by way of allotment after getting exemption from the operation of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. In that capacity he was attached to Shri Muni Prasad Shukla, the Revenue Minister. The applicant was serving as an Under Secretary in the Revenue Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh as an employee of the executive services of the State in 1984. ![]() The facts for determination of this revision are as follows. The applicant is facing trial for commission of offences which are liable to be punished by Section 468, 471, 120B of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") or instead of the charges under aforesaid sections of the Act of 1988 under Section 5(1)(d) (for short "the Act of 1947).ģ. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 29th May, 1998 passed in special case No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |