K KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(SC)-2006-12-73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 06,2006

K.KARUNAKARAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

P. GOPALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
VIVO COMMUNICATION DEVICE PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA VS. CBI [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
RUPAK BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
BABY VARKEY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-7-612] [REFERRED TO]
O P SHUKLA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
HAZARI RAM GOND VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
MANIVANNAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK GOPINATH DESHPANDE AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT BHAGAT VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
SRI BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA PANDA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
AJOY ACHARYA VS. STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(MPH)-2011-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
MANZOOR ALI KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI BRAHMATMANANDA MAHARAJ VS. ALAK KUMAR MAITI [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
DINA NATH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
V S ACHUTHANANDAN VS. STATE OF KERALA; DEPARTMENT OF HOME & VIGILANCE; DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; SH OOMMEN CHANDY UNION OF INDIA; SH P J THOMAS; JIJI THOMSON [LAWS(KER)-2015-1-321] [REFERRED]
P.K.M. SELVAM AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-88] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court holding that since the appellant was not holding office which he allegedly abused, at the time of taking cognizance, no sanction was necessary.
(2.)Primary stand in this appeal is that the view expressed in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1992) 1 SCC 279 is not correct and fresh look is necessary as the observations made are per incuriam. An additional point has been raised that the prosecution is the outcome of mala fides and varying stands taken at different stages clearly indicate the fact that the appellant is the victim of personal and political rivalry with leaders of some political parties.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the decision in R.S. Nayaks case (supra) cannot be said to be a case of per incuriam. Additionally, there is no mala fide involved. It is stated that even if for the sake of arguments it is conceded but not admitted that political reasons exist that cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. In any event, the circumstances highlighted by the appellant to substantiate the plea of allegation cannot be taken note of.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.