Scribd
Upload
46 views3 pages

Judgements

The document discusses several Supreme Court judgments related to corruption cases, the powers of magistrates to direct investigations, and the constitutional validity of office of profit legislation. It notes that in a 2022 judgment, the Supreme Court came down heavily on corruption among public servants and lowered the bar for evidence required to convict persons charged with corruption. It also summarizes a judgment that magistrates cannot direct the CBI to investigate matters. Finally, it discusses a landmark 2019 Supreme Court judgment that interference by High Courts in administrative decisions is only warranted if the decision suffers from illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

Uploaded by

Sana Parveen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views3 pages

Judgements

The document discusses several Supreme Court judgments related to corruption cases, the powers of magistrates to direct investigations, and the constitutional validity of office of profit legislation. It notes that in a 2022 judgment, the Supreme Court came down heavily on corruption among public servants and lowered the bar for evidence required to convict persons charged with corruption. It also summarizes a judgment that magistrates cannot direct the CBI to investigate matters. Finally, it discusses a landmark 2019 Supreme Court judgment that interference by High Courts in administrative decisions is only warranted if the decision suffers from illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

Uploaded by

Sana Parveen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Judgements

Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh& Anr vs C. Muralidhar on 22 July, 1997wherein he


was prosecuted for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 for holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
D

CBI v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 3 SCC 333 providing that Magistrate cannot
give directions for an offence to be investigated by a particular agency, and
that there is no such right except for offences to be investigated properly, as
provided in CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996) 11 SCC 253....

CONCLUSION –

To conclude with, in this case, it is held that a magistrate in exercise of


his powers cannot direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to
conduct investigation into any offence. If the power of a magistrate to
direct investigation by the CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be
traced as mentioned in the above provisions, it is not possible to
smidgen such power in any other provision of the Code.

In a judgment in December 2022 — Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of


NCT of Delhi) — the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
came down heavily on corruption among public servants in the
country and lowered the bar for the quantum of evidence required
to convict persons charged with corruption

PIL on the Constitutional Validity of Office of Profit Bill

It sparked in March 2006, when after Sonia Gandhi resigned and


negotiations began to save the 12 left MP's and several others
MLA's across the political spectrum. All this happened in the
backdrop of Jaya Bachan's membership being terminated by the
Election Commission citing court's precedents on office of profit.
Finally in May-August 2006, the bill was passed to exempt the
offices from the office of profit despite the objections from the
president. The MP's believe that defining office of profit is the
prerogative of the Parliament. But, the SC was ready to consider a
PIL on the constitutional validity of such a bill, as any legislation has
to conform to the letter and sprit of the constitution. Was the
Judiciary wrong or right? This is left for the judiciary to decide. Is
our state still under the control of a limited judiciary or have the
other organs become subordinate to it? The Constitution gives the
answer, in the name of 'Doctrine of Separation'.

“The Special Judge takes the seat of a magistrate as a court of


original criminal jurisdiction while dealing with an application under
Section 156 (3) or 202 of the [Criminal Procedure] Code and does
not have the power to direct the CBI to investigate into a matter,”
stated the judgment.

Courts Can Interfere With Administrative Actions Only If It Suffers From Vice
Of Illegality, Irrationality Or Procedural Impropriety:

The Supreme Court has reiterated that while exercising its powers of judicial
review of administrative action, Courts could not interfere with the
administrative decision unless it suffers from the vice of illegality,
irrationality or procedural [Link] bench comprising Justice Arun
Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai observed thus while setting
aside a Madhya Pradesh High... This is a prem

[Link]
infinitescroll=1

Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate that an interference by the


High Court would be warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an
apparent error of law.
It must be mentioned right at the outset that in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable
judgment titled Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate And Ors in Civil
Appeal No. 7319-7320 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 172-173 of 2019) which
was delivered on September 17, 2019 by a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court
comprising of Justice BR Gavai who authored the judgment for himself, Justice Arun
Mishra and Justice MR Shah has sought to send a very loud, clear and categorical
message to all the High Courts that an interference by the High Court would be
warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law.

You might also like