<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said that a trial in a graft case can neither be stayed nor scuttled in the middle on the ground of absence or invalid sanction once the Special Judge has taken cognisance of the offence and framed the charge against the accused.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said that an interlocutory application seeking discharge in the middle of the trial would also not be maintainable. </p>.<p>However, the issue of sanction can be raised at the final arguments in the trial in accordance with the law, the bench said.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/sc-stays-madras-hc-order-that-declared-lone-aiadmk-mp-p-ravindhranaths-election-invalid-1243965.html">SC stays Madras HC order that declared lone AIADMK MP P Ravindhranath's election invalid</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench said it is always desirable to raise the issue of the validity of sanction at the earliest point in time. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta against the order passed by the High Court on August 16, 2018, discharging the accused from the offences charged under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p>.<p>The High Court had found that the sanction accorded to prosecute A Subbegowda, then working as Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board for allegedly amassing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income, was illegal and without jurisdiction.</p>.<p>The top court pointed out sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act clearly forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction was bad, except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred by such invalidity.</p>.<p>In the instant case, the top court said the High Court could not have interfered or altered with the Special Court's findings that the sanction was proper and valid without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said that a trial in a graft case can neither be stayed nor scuttled in the middle on the ground of absence or invalid sanction once the Special Judge has taken cognisance of the offence and framed the charge against the accused.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said that an interlocutory application seeking discharge in the middle of the trial would also not be maintainable. </p>.<p>However, the issue of sanction can be raised at the final arguments in the trial in accordance with the law, the bench said.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/sc-stays-madras-hc-order-that-declared-lone-aiadmk-mp-p-ravindhranaths-election-invalid-1243965.html">SC stays Madras HC order that declared lone AIADMK MP P Ravindhranath's election invalid</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench said it is always desirable to raise the issue of the validity of sanction at the earliest point in time. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta against the order passed by the High Court on August 16, 2018, discharging the accused from the offences charged under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p>.<p>The High Court had found that the sanction accorded to prosecute A Subbegowda, then working as Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board for allegedly amassing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income, was illegal and without jurisdiction.</p>.<p>The top court pointed out sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act clearly forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction was bad, except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred by such invalidity.</p>.<p>In the instant case, the top court said the High Court could not have interfered or altered with the Special Court's findings that the sanction was proper and valid without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused.</p>
