New Delhi, Sanction has to be obtained by the prosecuting agency before a court takes cognisance and any subsequent sanction would be futile, the Delhi High Court held recently.
Justice Neena Krishna Bansal passed the order in a case where a belated sanction was accorded for prosecution of public servants the petitioner, an MCD school principal, and a junior engineer contractor for allegedly causing death by negligence.
The court dropped the proceedings against the petitioner and discharged her in the case, saying the law on the issue of prior sanction under the law was settled.
"Sanction had to be obtained prior to taking of cognisance. Subsequent sanction would not cure the initial defect in cognisance. Consequently, the application for dropping of proceedings against the petitioner is allowed and she is hereby discharged with the liberty to the prosecution, to take appropriate action," the court held on January 17.
The accused faced an FIR by Delhi Police after a four-year-old child drowned in the school's septic tank in 2016 on account of the alleged negligence.
The FIR was registered under the provisions of the IPC, including Section 304 A .
The petitioner, represented by advocate Dhruv Gupta, argued the chargesheet was filed in the trial court on July 5, 2016 and the cognisance was taken without any sanction from the competent authority at that time.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner, represented by advocate Dhruv Gupta, argued the chargesheet was filed in the trial court on July 5, 2016 and the cognisance was taken without any sanction from the competent authority at that time.
{{/usCountry}}It was therefore contended that the cognisance taken by the trial court was bad in law and the petitioner ought to be discharged and if any subsequent chargesheet against the petitioner was to be filed, it would also have to be supported with an application for condonation of delay.
The prosecution submitted though admittedly sanction was taken after cognisance was taken, the police had the option of submitting the chargesheet against the petitioner afresh post a fresh sanction besides obtaining condonation of the delay.
The court ruled in favour of the accused and clarified if any application for condonation of delay was filed, the same would be considered, in accordance with law by the trial court.
It further said the trial against other accused should continue in accordance with law.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.