STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus ANAND MOHAN &ANR.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus ANAND MOHAN &ANR.

The Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh, was competent to grant sanction for prosecution since February 1988 via rules amendment and subsequent orders, and there is no infirmity in the sanction granted for offences allegedly committed in 1997; the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Parties
Appellant: State of Madhya Pradesh; Respondent: Anand Mohan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 03.09.2013 in W.p. No. 21246 of 2012
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sanction for Prosecution, Competency of Authority, Delegation of Power, Prevention of Corruption Act

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant

Anand Mohan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 03.09.2013 in W.p. No. 21246 of 2012

  1. 1 Which department of the State Government is competent to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
  2. 2 Whether the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs had the authority to grant sanction for prosecution in respect of offences committed in 1997?

Ratio Decidendi

The Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh, was competent to grant sanction for prosecution since February 1988 via rules amendment and subsequent orders, and there is no infirmity in the sanction granted for offences allegedly committed in 1997; the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.2013 of the High Court set aside
  • Sanction granted by Department of Law and Legislative Affairs dated 20.11.2012 upheld