Search results
Oct 1, 2013 · Supreme Court of India. Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013. Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan. Bench: A.K. Sikri, K.S. Radhakrishnan. REPORTABLE. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1590-1591 OF 2013. (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.6652-6653 of 2013)
- Manju Surana vs Sunil Arora on 27 March, 2018 - Indian Kanoon
The order really refers to various judicial pronouncements...
- Government Employee. In Case Anil Kumar ... vs M.K.Aiyappa ...
Vs M.K.Aiyappa & ors., in Criminal Appeal No.15901591 of...
- Manju Surana vs Sunil Arora on 27 March, 2018 - Indian Kanoon
Dec 5, 2015 · Vs M.K.Aiyappa & ors., in Criminal Appeal No.15901591 of 2013, Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held as under : A special Judge is deemed to be a Magistrate under Section 5(4) of the PC Act and, therefore, clothed with all the magisterial powers provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a private complaint is filed before ...
Sep 24, 2023 · Court: Supreme Court of India. Citation: Anil Kumar V. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a Judicial Magistrate is required to examine every complaint under aegis of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a view of judicial mind.
- Subject
- Overview
- Issues
- Legal Provisions
- Judgement Analysis
- Conclusion
This case is a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court wherein it was pronounced that a Magistrate/Special Judge is not justified in referring a case against a public servant for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC without valid sanction.
In this case, the appellants made a private complaint to the Additional City Civil Court and Special Judge (prevention of corruption) under Section 200 of the CrPC. They complained that the respond...Upon this, the Special Judge referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation, invoking its power under Section 156(3) of theCrPC. Aggrieved by this, the respondent had...The High Court said that the Special Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction because they entertained a case against a public servant without the government sanction, which is essential. Therefore,...The Counsel for the appellant said that if the High Courts' interpretation is accepted, then Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 will become futile. He also said that the requir...The question before the Court was whether the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3) without a valid government sanction order?Does the Magistrate's order to conduct an investigation under Section 156(3) amount to taking cognizance of the offence?Is the requirement of sanction a pre-condition even at a pre-cognizance stage?Section 200 of the CrPC – Examination of the complainant by the Magistrate.Section 156(3) of the CrPC – Power of Magistrate to order a police investigation.Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 – Previous sanction necessary to prosecute a public servant acting under duty.Firstly, the Supreme Court made it very clear that application of mind by the Magistrate before passing such order is essential. Also, a Magistrate cannot use the power under Section 156(3) to pros...Upon the question of cognizance, the Court reiterated that taking cognizance is different from issuance of process. Hence, when the Special Judge made an order for an investigation, he had obviousl...The Court also rejected the contention of the appellant that a sanction is only procedural in nature and not mandatory. For this, they pointed out the object of Section 19 of the 1988 Act and highl...Hence, the appeal made by the appellants was dismissed by the honorable Court on the grounds that they lacked merit. The Court also asserted that there is no such error in the judgement passed by t...This judgement of the Supreme Court established that a sanction is of paramount importance to protect a public servant doing his duty. It also ruled that if a sanction is required, and the Court proceeds against a public servant without it, then such a public servant can raise the issue of jurisdiction. Be that as it may, later in a 2016 judgement,...
- CCI Team
Facts. The appellants filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption on 9-10-2012.
Sep 18, 2007 · Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & ANR. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1590-1591 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.6652-6653 of 2013] K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2.
Reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Subramanium Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another (2012) 3 SCC 64. Learned senior counsel submitted that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duties.
