LexC.B.I. versus ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 983 C.8.1. v. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL (Criminal Appeal No.1838 of 2013) NOVEMBER 22, 2013 [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Criminal Law - Sanction for prosecution - Validity of - Legal propositions in regard to grant of sanction - Discussed - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19. A B c 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 0 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 E 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, F the impugned order had already been partly complied with before filing petition before the Supreme Court -" Appellant G admittedly did not disclose material facts - In the SLP, it was not disclosed that the trial vourt, after remand, entertained the matter and issued summons to the then sanctioning authority, 983 H 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 14 $.C.R. A 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 fr<~m the stage when the stay operated and conclude the same at the earliest. c Criminal Jurisprudence - Failure of justice - Meaning of - Held: The expression 'failure of justice' is an extremely pliable or facile an expression which can be made to fit into any case - There would' be 'failure of justice' nol only by unjust conviction but also by acquittal of the guilty as a result of D unjust or negligent failure to produce requisite evidence, Criminal Jurisprudence - 'Prejudice' - Held: The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters falling beyond their scope - Once the accused is able E to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him with respect to either of these aspects, and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under legal jurisprudence, the accused can seek relief from the Court - Words and Phrases. F The appellant-CBI registered a case against the respondent for possessing disproportionate assets. The trial Court took cognizance and issued summons to the respondent. The respondent filed application challenging the validity of the sanction granted by the competent G authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that it was not the appropriate stage to decide as to whether sanction granted by the competent authority was invalid and that the issue could H be examined during trial. The High Court set aside the C.B.I. v. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL 985 order of the trial court and remanded the case to record a finding on the question of any failure pf justice in according sanction and to examine the sanctioning authority, as a witness even at pre-charge stage, if it deems fit. In the instant appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the application challenging the validity of the sanction at a stage anterior even to framing of the charges was in contravention of the settled legal propositions. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said autho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.