SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

Devinder SIngh & ors v. State of Punjab through CBI - (Supreme Court) (25 Apr 2016)

Question of sanction can be raised at time of framing of charges

Service

Central government sanction against policemen is not required if prosecution is able to prove its case of them having partaken in a fake encounter.

The instant case stemmed from officers of Punjab Police allegedly staging a fake encounter in 1993, a time when the State was rife with terrorist activity. On a complaint being lodged against the policemen, State sanction was obtained for prosecution and the CBI filed a charge sheet against the accused. Central sanction was not obtained, as was required under the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act 1983.

The Court discussed several judgments before enumerating principles on the sanctity and need of sanction. It concluded that the question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge and can be decided on the basis of accusation. In the instant case, so long as the prosecution is able to prove its version of events, no sanction will be required, however the defendants will also have opportunity to adduce evidence in defence.

Relevant : Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari MANU/SC/0071/1955 Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr. MANU/SC/0289/2000 Section 6 Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983

Tags : GOVERNMENT SANCTION   POLICE OFFICER   PROSECUTION   ENCOUNTER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved