Summary of Important Judgments of The Supreme Court
The High Courts


Important points


ACB can investigation into offences against central government servants even after the setting up of CBI


Stay of sentence as well as conviction by High Court – Not proper – set a side


Slipping away of accused when trap late – accused neither apprehended nor tented money recovered – no benefit to accused – conviction upheld


Requiring accused to record his voice sample – does not infringe article 20 (3) constitution of India – on refusal before court – adverse inference can be drawn


Grant of prosecution sanction is an administrative function opportunity to accused before according sanction need not to be given


Common sanction order by the higher authority – held valid


Enquiry and verification with regard to source information is permissible before lodging of FIR – FIR can not be quashed

8 Issuing of P.S. on the basis draft P.S. Supplied by ACB is valid.




1-        AIR 1973 SC 913 at pp-915-20= 1973 Cr LJ 902
            A.C. Sharma V. Delhi Administration

In this case the question was whether with the setting up of the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( i.e. , CBI) The Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi Police had been completely deprived of its power to investigate into the corruption cases against Central Government servants or whether both the SPE and Anti Corruption Branch to had power to investigate, it been a matter of internal administrative arrangement for the appropriate authority to regulate the assignment of the investigation of the case according to the exigencies of the situation. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of DSPE Act 1946 does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authority of their jurisdiction, power and competent to investigate into offences under any other competent law.


2-        2004 Cr.L.R. SC 242
           State of Maharasthra V. Gajanan & Anr.

P.C. Act 1988  - Sec. 7 – Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Sec. 389(1) – Conviction in corruption case- Stay of sentence as well as conviction by High Court thus facilitating continuance of service of respondent public servant – Held, not proper. impugned order set aside. (See Para 4) Ref. 2001 CrLR SC 526  K.C. Sareen V. CBI Chandigarh.
In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had that by the impugned judgment the High Court while entertaining a criminal appeal against an order of conviction recorded by the Special Court against the respondents herein for an offence u/s 7 of the P.C. Act not only State the sentence imposed by the trial court but also proceeded to stay the conviction which could facilitate the respondent public servant to continue the hold the civil post in spite of the conviction recorded against him. While doing so the High Court rejected the objection of the state as also distinguished the judgment of this court in K.C. Sareen V. CBI Chandigarh. 
In the said judgment in K.C. Sareen (Supra), The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is only in very exceptional cases that the court should exercise such power of stay in matters arising out of the act. The High Court has in the impugned order nowhere pointed out what is exceptional fact that in its opinion required it to stay the conviction. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed. 

3-        1998 Cr.L.J. Delhi Page 3022
           Teka Ram Appellant V. The State Respondent

P.C. Act 1947 Sec. 5(1)(d) – Illegal gratification – Conviction for – Validity – Trap Case – Accused, a reader in court demanding bribe for forwarding application – Slipping away from court when trap was laid – thereby he could neither be apprehended nor tainted money could be recovered – Accused cannot benefit from said circumstance to claim discrepancy in investigation- Offence against accused proved beyond doubt – Conviction upheld.


4-        2005 Cr.L.J. Bombay 2868
           CBI, New Delhi V. Abdul Karim Telgi & others.

Evidence Act Sections 8, 45 – Application for permission to record voice sample of accused – For purpose of identification of his voice to compare it with tape recorded telephonic conversation – Requiring accused to record his voice sample – does not infringe article 20(3) of Constitution as it does not amount " Testimonial Compulsion"
In such a case, even if the subject application seeking for direction to accused to give his voice sample as filed by the investigating agency before the court makes no reference to any specification provision of law even so it is not a case of no jurisdiction to consider such application or grant to said relief. If such direction were to be granted and the accused resisted or refused to co-operate, the consequence thereof is provided under Sec. 6 of the Act 1920. This obviously may be in addition to the adverse influence that can be drawn against the obstinate accused. (para 14)

5-        AIR 1996 SC 186
           SP CBI appellant V. Deepak Chaudhary and others Respondents

  1. P.C. Act 1947 – Sec. 6 – Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Grant of Sanction is an administrative function – Opportunity of hearing to accused before according sanction need not be given.
  2. P.C. Act 1947 – Sec. 6 - Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Order quashing sanction on ground that accused was exonerated  of charge by disciplinary authority – not proper.

6-        2001 Cr.L.J. (Kerala) 4448
           Ahamed Kalnad V. State of Kerala

P.C. Act 1988, Sections 13, 19- Sanction for Prosecution- Common Sanction order passed for more than 25 accused – Offences involves in all cases similar and part of alleged larger conspiracy- passing common order justified and valid.

Para 7 – Even if the Engineers concerned could have been removed from service only by their head of department there cannot be any bar to the government itself deciding to issue of Sanction for Prosecution in so far as the government is superior authority vis-a-vis the Head of Department

7-        2005 Cr.L.J. NOC (Rajasthan) 256
           Ravi Shankar Srivastava V. State of Rajasthan & others.

Constitution of India, art. 226 – Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Sec. 13 – DSPE Act 1946, Sec. 6-A-Quashing of FIR – Allegation in FIR that petitioner working as Member, Board of Revenue was habitually accepting illegal gratification and that illegal benefit was to be granted by him by passing a review order in a particular revenue matter- Enquiry and Verification with regard to source information is permissible before lodging of FIR – Evidence collected in support of FIR also discloses commission of offence- FIR cannot be quashed.  


Register Your Complaint on Whatsapp.