SC trying to root out corruption from INDIA

Supreme Court of India is trying to root out the corruption from the Bureaucracy

In a plethora of cases, it had been clarified that where the “language is clear, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of legislation or the intention of the legislature, when the language of the provision is plain,” the Bench noted.

See the Link below :

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090913/nation.htm#1

 

Abetting Corruption
SC: No sanction needed for prosecuting officials
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 12
The Supreme Court has ruled that no sanction was required to prosecute government servants charged with abetting corruption under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reddy pointed out yesterday while setting aside a Bombay High Court verdict.Sudershan and B RaveendranSection 19 of the PCA which stipulated “previous sanction” for prosecution “specifically omits Section 12 from its purview,” a Bench comprising Justices RV

 

 

 

 

 

 

“…the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court fell into error in reading into Section 19 of the Act, the prohibition not to take cognizance of an offence punishable even under Section 12 of the Act without previous sanction of the government which is not otherwise provided for,” the apex court ruled.

The language employed in Section 19 of the Act “is couched in mandatory form directing the courts not to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 only.”

The legislature “consciously” omitted abetment of an offence punishable under Section 7 (public servant taking gratification) or 11 (public servant obtaining valuable thing), making its intention clear that no previous sanction would be required in cases of offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act, the court clarified in the verdict.

“The High Court read something into Section 19 on its own, thereby including Section 12 also into its ambit, which in our opinion is impermissible,” the Bench ruled in the verdict, written for the Bench by Justice Reddy.

The CBI had filed the appeal against the HC verdict in a 2002 case involving the then Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Panaji, and the Inspector of Central Excise, Goa.

The case was related to the purchase of 48 ready built flats for the Customs Department at “an exorbitant” price of Rs 3.55 crore, causing a loss of over Rs 1 crore to the department.

The two officials had tried to bribe the CBI Inspector involved in the investigation, but the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, refused to take cognizance of the chargesheet in the absence of sanction. The HC had upheld the ruling, forcing the CBI to come to the apex court.

In a plethora of cases, it had been clarified that where the “language is clear, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of legislation or the intention of the legislature, when the language of the provision is plain,” the Bench noted.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: