Supreme Court of India
Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka
INSC stands for INDIAN SUPREME COURT. A neutral citation scheme assigned by the Court itself, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter. INSC is the neutral citation scheme assigned by the Supreme Court, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter.
2 Supreme Court benches have cited this judgment.
What the Court ordered
We hold that the trial and eventual conviction of the appellant by Mr.
Judgment, page 23
From the headnote
s· Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19 - Sanction required uls. 19- Competency of trial court to take cognizance of offence alleged against the public servant - Held: In the absence of a valid previous sanction required uls.19 of the Act, the trial Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence alleged - The question regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings - . The competence of the court trying the accused depends upon the existence of a valid sanction - In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the court can discharge the accused
Authorities it was built on
Where later benches applied it
- 2023 State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda
- 2018 State of Mizoram v. Dr. C. Sangnghina
Of those, 2 relied on
Sign in free to read it
- The full judgment, page by page, as published in the Supreme Court Reports
- The ratio: what the Court held, verbatim, with the page it sits on
- Every bench that relied on it, and every bench that argued against it
- Search every reported judgment, by party, citation or question
- Download the PDF, copy pinpoint citations ready for a filing
An email address, no password.