High Court Explains the Law on the Powers of Lokpal
Once a sanction is granted under Section 20(7)(a) of Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, the learned Lokpal becomes functus officio insofar as the merits of the case are concerned. The Act does not provide for deferment of sanction, reconsideration of material, or continuation of scrutiny by the Lokpal at a subsequent stage when the role of the learned Special Court has come into play.
Mahua Moitra v. Lokpal of India [2025] GCtR 1867 (Delhi)
Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
S.19 of the PC Act, 1988 is applicable on public servant and deals with cognizance by Court and previous sanction by competent authority. S.19 is not applicable on S.8,9, 10 and 12. Time limit given is 3 months. In an important finding of R.C. Sabharwal v. CBI [2010] GCtR 6281 (Delhi) it was held that the PC Act, 1988 was enacted in the year 1988, much after the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force and the provisions of Section 19(3)(c) of PC Act, 1988 have been given overriding effect over the provisions contained in Code.
It was further held that had the intention of the Legislature been to give the same meaning to the term "interlocutory order" in Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, as had been given to this term in the context of Section 397 (2) of the Code, there would have been no necessity of incorporating a specific provision to this effect in Prevention of Corruption Act. Even in the absence of such a provision in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 revisional powers could not have been used in respect of an interlocutory order, in view of the embargo placed by Section 397(2) of the Code, 1973. The Acts of the Legislature are not intended to be superfluous, and the Legislature is presumed to be aware and conscious of all other statutory enactments when it passes a particular legislation. Hence, if the Legislature, despite preexistence of similar provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, chose to make a specific provision in Prevention of Corruption Act so as to take interlocutory orders out of the purview of revisional jurisdiction of the Court, it could not have intended to give same meaning to the expression "interlocutory order" as had been given to this term in the context of the Section 397(2) of the Code.
Whether the Insolvency Professionals (IP) are Public Servants ? HC Answers the Issue
There are many decisions which deal with insolvency professionals.
In Dr. Arun Mohan v CBI [2023] GCtR 2169 (Delhi), it was held that an Insolvency Professional does not fall within the meaning of “public servant” as ascribed in any of the clauses of sub-section (c ) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Complete judgment can be downloaded free of cost from https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment - Date of Judgment is 18 December 2023.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : Accused Acquitted by High Court
Sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with "undue advantage". Explanation 1 to S.7 of the Act says that for the purpose of this section [S.7], the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Sec. 8(1) of the PC Act, 1988 deals with a person who gives an undue advantage. Sec. 19 (1) deals with previous sanction and cognisance of an offence under certain sections of PC Act, 1988.
In a recent case, accused was initially convicted for offences under the PC Act, 1988.
However, in Ghanshyam Hari Pagare v State of Maharashtra [2023] GCtR 2130 (Bombay), the appeal filed by the accused was allowed and the order of conviction was set aside. It was found that basic ingredients of the offence were not proved.
Accused secured his acquittal without engaging any designated Senior Advocate.
One can download entire judgment free of cost from the following link : -
https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/ord_qryrepact.php
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.
IBC, 2016 : Resolution Professional Is a Public Servant
A recent Judgment has been passed on 5 April 2023 by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M.P. 1048 of 2021.
In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v CBI [2023] GCtR 837 (Jharkhand), it has been held that the resolution professional will come within the meaning of a public servant under Section 2(c) the PC Act.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.
Scope of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Answered in a recent Judgment passed in July 2026 S.9 of Arbitration and Concil...