SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 imposes an undiluted ban against granting stay of trials under the Act by any court, including the High Court, even when exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The legislative intent is to expedite proceedings and prevent delay in anti-corruption prosecutions. Any power, including inherent, cannot be used to grant stay in contravention of this express statutory bar.

Parties
Appellant: Satya Narayan Sharma; Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Under Section 482 Cr PC by Rajasthan High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Trial, Inherent Jurisdiction, Prevention of Corruption Act, Revision and Appeal, Sanction for Prosecution
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Stay of Trial Inherent Jurisdiction Prevention of Corruption Act Revision and Appeal Sanction for Prosecution

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satya Narayan Sharma

Appellant

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Under Section 482 Cr PC by Rajasthan High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether courts can stay proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
  2. 2 Does Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act bar stay of trials on any ground, including the exercise of inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 imposes an undiluted ban against granting stay of trials under the Act by any court, including the High Court, even when exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The legislative intent is to expedite proceedings and prevent delay in anti-corruption prosecutions. Any power, including inherent, cannot be used to grant stay in contravention of this express statutory bar.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Trial to proceed on day-to-day basis and be concluded within six months.
  • Registrars of all High Courts directed to list cases with such stay orders before the concerned court for appropriate action in light of this decision.