The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal because the trial court proceeded against the public servant without the required sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
- The State of Punjab is appealing a High Court decision that overturned a trial court’s order summoning Pratap Singh Verka as an accused under the Criminal Procedure Code for corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- The case involves a corruption charge against a doctor, Partap Singh Verka, and his assistant, Vikas. Verka was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from a patient through Vikas. Both were arrested but later released on bail. Only Vikas was charged.
- During the trial, the patient testified that Verka was the main culprit and Vikas was his accomplice. The trial court added Verka as an accused.
- But the High Court quashed this order as the prosecution failed to obtain the necessary sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- The trial court granted the Public Prosecutor’s application under Section 319 of the CrPC without considering the necessity of obtaining prior sanction.
The Supreme Court affirmed that prior sanction is mandatory for prosecuting a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even when adding them as an accused under the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution failed to obtain this necessary sanction, and the trial court mistakenly proceeded without insisting on it. Therefore, the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings against the public servant was upheld.
CASE NAME: THE STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS PARTAP SINGH VERKA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1943 OF 2024
NAME : J. RANI SANGAMITHRA, BALLB(HONS), SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW(TAMILNADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY),INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments