S.A.VENKATARAMAN versus THE STATE

S.A.VENKATARAMAN versus THE STATE

No sanction under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is necessary for prosecution if at the time of taking cognizance, the accused is not a public servant removable from office by a competent authority.

Parties
Appellant: S.A. Venkataraman; Appellant: Appellant in Cr. A. No. 25 of 56; Respondent: The State
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 1957
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Prevention of Corruption Act, Sanction for Prosecution, Public Servant, Interpretation of Statutes
Criminal Law Prevention of Corruption Act Sanction for Prosecution Public Servant Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.A. Venkataraman

Appellant

Appellant in Cr. A. No. 25 of 56

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sanction under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is necessary for prosecuting a person who ceased to be a public servant at the time when the court takes cognizance

Ratio Decidendi

No sanction under s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is necessary for prosecution if at the time of taking cognizance, the accused is not a public servant removable from office by a competent authority.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No sanction required under s. 6 of the Act as at the time of cognizance the accused was not a public servant.
  • Prosecution may proceed without sanction if the accused has ceased to be a public servant.