Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

C.B.I. vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL

SCR Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 983
Year/Volume: 2013/ Volume 14
Date of Judgment: 22 November 2013
Petitioner: C.B.I.
Disposal Nature: Appeal Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2013 INSC 778
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Respondent: ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL
Case Type: CRIMINAL APPEAL /1838 /2013
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Criminal Law - Sanction for prosecution - Validity of - Legal propositions in regard to grant of sanction - Discussed - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19 - Disproportionate assets case - Sanction for prosecution - Validity of - Appropriate stage for examining the validity - Appellant-CBI registered case against respondent for possessing disproportionate assets - Trial Court issued summons to the respondent - Respondent filed application challenging the validity of the sanction granted by the competent authority u/s.19 of the Act - Trial court dismissed the application, holding that the issue could be examined during trial - High Court remanded the case to record finding on the question of any failure of justice in according sanction and to examine the sanctioning authority, as a witness even at pre-charge stage, if it deems fit - Plea of appellant that application challenging validity of the sanction at a stage anterior even to framing of the charges would be in contravention of the settled legal propositions - On appeal, held: The stage of examining the validity of sanction is undoubtedly during the trial - However, in the instant case, the impugned order had already been partly complied with before filing petition before the Supreme Court -" Appellant admittedly did not disclose material facts - In the SLP, it was not disclosed that the trial court, after remand, entertained the matter and issued summons to the then sanctioning authority, and in response thereto, an affidavit had been filed by the then sanctioning authority, disclosing that no material had been considered by him while granting sanction - However, the issue as to what prejudice had been caused to the respondent, not considered - Benefit of interim protection B granted by Supreme Court in favour of appellant, where the appellant did not disclose material facts, should be neutralized - Trial court to proceed with the matter from the stage when the stay operated and conclude the same at the earliest.

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • Sanction for prosecution
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2014 AIR 827 = 2014 (14) SCC 295 = 2014 (14) Suppl. SCC 295 = 2013 (15) JT 251 = 2013 (15) Suppl. JT 251 = 2013 (14) SCALE 280