The Supreme Court will certainly whether permission is necessary to prosecute the corruption case; Learn what is the whole thing - the Supreme Court to decide on pre -approval for corruption cases

The Supreme Court has formed a large bank to make a great decision on the need for prior permission to prosecute corruption cases. There is also a question on this whether prior approval must be prosecuted under the Corruption Prevention Act after the Magistrate’s Court’s order of inquiry. In addition, the Supreme Court also decided a few questions. Pti, New -Delhi. The Supreme Court on Monday sent the legal issues arising from the petition of the BJP leader BS Yeddyurappa to the big bank for consideration. There is also a question on this whether prior approval must be prosecuted under the Corruption Prevention Act after the Magistrate’s Court’s order of inquiry. The court ruled a few questions about the decision of the Great Bank, and the Supreme Court listed a few questions for the decision of the big bank. Section 156 (3) of CRPC enables the judicial magistrate to recommend a police investigation into a complaint. Article 17A of the Corruption Prevention Act says that no police officer would investigate the alleged crime committed by a civil servant without prior approval if the alleged crime was related to the dismissal of his official functions by the civil servant. On April 4, the court ruled that a bank of safe justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra reserved its ruling on the plea of ​​Yeddyurappa on April 4, which challenged the Karnataka High Court to resume a corruption case against him. However, when the bank began writing the verdict, they received an order of April 16, 2024 in which another bank ordered to send similar questions to a large bank in a separate case. The bank then instructed the register to put the case before the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court accepted the plea of ​​Bangalore Ka Alam Pasha and acted against Yeddyurappa and other accused. Pasha made allegations of Yeddyurappa and other accused corruption and criminal conspiracy. Know what are the allegations? It is alleged that in 2011 there was corruption in the award of 26 hectares of industrial land in the Devanhalli industrial area, which caused the state treasury. In 2013, the Supreme Court rejected the complaint of Pasha due to a lack of compulsory approval under section 19 of the Corruption Prevention Act. Pasha filed a new complaint in 2014 after the accused retired from the post, which argued that no more approval was needed, in light of the Supreme Court decision in the AR Antula case. However, the special judge rejected the second complaint. Pasha again approached the Supreme Court against it. The Supreme Court decided whether the prior approval of the officials was needed, even after the judicial magistrate ordered an investigation under section 156 (3) of the CRPC. What are the appropriate cases under section 17A of the Corruption Prevention Act, 1988, which is expected to consider the officer for approval to investigate. Whether the cases considered by the appropriate officer or the government are basically different from the cases that are expected to implement the order under section 156 (3) of the CRPC under section 17A in terms of section 17A of the Corruption Prevention Act. When the Magistrate is approved under section 156 (3) of the CRPC, the need for prior approval under section 17A of the Corruption Prevention Act is not meaningless. The magistrate can be investigated under Article 200 of CRPC (investigation into private complainant) and 202 (delay of criminal case) without prior consent. Every latest news and accurate information from the country and the world, every moment on your phone! Download now- Jagran app