In Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India (22 November 2011), an existing prosecution…
In Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India the Supreme Court distinguished a case where there is no sanction at all from one where a sanction exists but is said…
Choose your answer
In Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India (22 November 2011), an existing prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was challenged as invalid for non-application of mind after cognizance had been taken. What distinction did the Supreme Court make?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer B
In Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India the Supreme Court distinguished a case where there is no sanction at all from one where a sanction exists but is said to be invalid, for instance for non-application of mind. Absence of sanction goes to the root of cognizance, but the validity of an existing sanction can be examined during the trial, so the question was left to be raised there. An alleged defect therefore neither ends the prosecution at once nor becomes unchallengeable after cognizance.