Your reader barcode: Your last name:. Cite this Email this Add to favourites Print this page. Wikipedia Citation Please see Wikipedia's template documentation for further citation fields that may be required. You must be logged in to Tag Records. In the Library Request this item to view in the Library's reading rooms using your library card.
- Welcome to Gene and Clara's.
- Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services (ECHANGES INDUST).
- Narada News sting: Bengal govt moves SC against Calcutta HC order for CBI probe;
- Stress und Stressbewältigung (German Edition).
- Lesson Plans Whoever Fights Monsters.
- Time runs out in CBI.
Details Collect From Order a copy Copyright or permission restrictions may apply. We will contact you if necessary. To learn more about Copies Direct watch this short online video. Need help? How do I find a book? Can I borrow this item? Staff needs to have their recruiting shoes on. The basketball world does not need any extra WV games this season. It's just no fun to watch. The country votes"no! Well worth it, to give the young guys a chance to get a taste of winning something.
Winning does wonders for confidence. Not to CBI. We'd lose money on it, and there's not enough exposure to make it worth the expenditure. I would let the players vote. Winning some games, if they can, would build some confidence and comradery. NO is my vote.
Columbus Baseball Invitational
The extra practice and playing time doesn't compensate for the embarrassment of being in it. That is the question. DhoondiahWaugh 29 6 months. Mr Handa, the complainant sent in his complaint dated In this complaint he alleged that he met the petitioner on The complainant then wrote in the complaint that as he did not want to pay the bribe, legal action be taken against the petitioner.
On receipt of the said complaint, at 2. No preliminary enquiry was conducted. No prior approval was taken from the Central Government even though the petitioner was an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary. Without any approval, the regular case was registered immediately at 2 p. It is clear that at 2 p. Thus, the investigation initiated at 2 p. At that stage the question of applicability of Section 6A 2 had not arisen. Therefore, the initiation and conduct of investigation on and from 2 p. To make the position absolutely clear, an examination of the provisions of Section 6A 2 would be necessary.
Section 6A 2 is non obstante the provisions of Section 6A 1. There is no doubt about it. But, it is triggered only in respect of cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in Clause c of the Explanation to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, A bribe is without any manner of doubt a gratification which is other than legal remuneration as referred to above.
To CBI or not to CBI. That is the question.
Therefore, Section 6A 2 would be applicable in cases involving the arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept a bribe. The basic ingredient of arrest on the spot was missing. Consequently, at that stage, Section 6A 2 did not apply and, therefore, the requirement of prior approval stipulated in Section 6A 1 was not diluted or dispensed with. But, things did not stop here. Investigation continued at a rapid pace. Pre-trap arrangements were made.
The Complainant who was present at the CBI Officer was asked to speak with the petitioner over the phone to set up a meeting in the petitioner's residence in the evening. The conversation, which allegedly contained references to the bribe, was allegedly taped. Currency notes were arranged and the trap was allegedly laid to which the petitioner allegedly succumbed and was said to have been caught "red handed" as indicated above. He was subsequently arrested. It is this arrest which is being put forth by the Respondent as an arrest "on the spot" on the charge of accepting bribe.
But this happened later in the evening on The offence of demanding bribe had already been committed.
There was ample time to seek an approval. There was no necessity of laying the trap on that very evening. Had it been the case that the complainant had already fixed the rendezvous time that evening even prior to the lodging of the complaint, then, perhaps, a case for urgency could be made out. But, this was not so. The time for handing over of the bribe amount was fixed on the instructions of the CBI after the case was registered and pre-trap arrangements were made.
The events leading to the arrest of the petitioner were pre-planned and well thought of and, to my mind, cannot be construed as an "arrest on the spot" as contemplated under Section 6A 2. As rightly argued by the petitioner, a distinguishing feature of an arrest on the spot while accepting bribe would be that the arrest of the person taking a bribe would precede the registering of a case. Here, the complaint is lodged, the case is registered, investigation is initiated, pre-trap arrangements are made and the arrest is made at the time of the alleged successful trap.
This type of case would not fall within the purview of Section 6A 2 and, therefore, the prior approval would be necessary. The prior approval was admittedly not obtained. Consequently, the investigation, including the trap proceedings, was illegal. That laying of a trap is part and parcel of an investigation, is well established. A reference to M. Sulkunte Dr v. State of Mysore and Sailendranath Bose v. State of Bihar: would suffice. The first of those decisions is the case of Prabhu v.
In this case, the accused, who was not a British subject but a native of the Jind State, committed an offence within the jurisdiction of British India.
He was tried and convicted by the British Indian Court within whose jurisdiction the offence had been committed. A contention was raised on behalf of the accused that his arrest was effected in the territory of Jind by a British Indian Officer and, therefore, the arrest was illegal. It was further contented that inasmuch as the arrest was illegal, this vitiated the entire proceeding. The Privy Council held that the validity of the trial and conviction of the accused was not effected by any irregularity in his arrest. They were of the view that the accused, who was presented for trial at Rohtak within the jurisdiction of British India, had been validly surrendered to the Court there by the Jind authorities and so far as the court at Rohtak was concerned, everything was regular and in order.
It is in these circumstances that the Privy Council came to the conclusion that the illegality of his arrest did not vitiate the trial and subsequent conviction. In Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King , the Privy Council was confronted with the question of the validity of a sanction and its effect on proceedings subsequent thereto.
http://objectifcoaching.com/components/oktibbeha/rencontre-femme-congo.php No prosecution for the contravention of any of the provisions of this Order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government or of such officer of the Provincial Government not below the rank of District Magistrate as the Provincial Government may by general or special order in writing authorise in this behalf.
After examining the facts of the case and the manner in which the sanction had been granted, the Privy Council was of the view that the sanction given in the case before it was not a sanction as was required by the said Section 23 of the said Order and, therefore, it was not a valid sanction. The Privy Council held that a defect in jurisdiction of the court can never be cured under Section of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads as under:.
Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XXVII or on appeal or revision on account-.
This is in pari materia to the provisions of Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity. In view of the Privy Council decision in Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka supra it is apparent that if the statute requires a sanction before any prosecution can be launched and if there is no valid sanction, then the defect in jurisdiction of the court cannot be cured under the provisions of Section or under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, In Lumbhardar Zutshi v.
The King AIR Privy Council 26, the Privy Council was of the view that even where the procedure had not been followed before making of an order which authorised the police to investigate the alleged offence, such a fault in procedure might have important consequences but it could not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try the appellants.
However, in that case, it must be noted, the Privy Council did not consider the question whether there was any fault in procedure inasmuch as the question of faulty procedure was raised before the Privy Council for the first time without the same being argued before the High Court.