VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 478
879
Pitambar Lal Goyal, Additional District & Sessions Judge
vs. State of Haryana,
1999(1) SLJ P&H 188
The High Court observed that even if it is assumed that
the petitioner had the knowledge, he was required to inform the
prescribed authority or obtain its previous sanction only if he was
acquiring or disposing of property “either in his own name or in
the name of any member of his family.” In the present case, it is
established on the record that the petitioner’s wife had bought the
plot of land with her own money. She is not a Government servant.
The petitioner had not paid for the transaction. He was not
acquiring the property either in his own name or in the name of a
member of his family. The High Court held that the transaction
did not fall within the mischief of Rule 18(2) of Government
Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
(478)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(B) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
Sanctioning authority not obliged to grant
opportunity of giving explanation and hearing to
the accused.
(C) Disproportionate assets — opportunity to explain
before framing of charge
At the time of framing of charge, not proper for
the trial court to rely upon documents filed by
accused in support of his claim that no case was
made out.
State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad vs. P.
Suryaprakasam,
1999 SCC (Cri) 373
The Supreme Court held that at the time of framing of a
charge, what the trial court is required to, and can consider are
only the police