Bombay HC: Whether prosecution must prove sanction for prosecution even though advocate for accused has admitted it?

 The defence has admitted the sanction to prosecute the appellant. However, even though the sanction order passed by the sanctioning authority to prosecute the appellant is admitted, the prosecution is still duty-bound to prove that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind while according sanction. It is against the safeguard of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also against Section 19 of the PC Act. Even though the said sanction order has been admitted by the defence, it is well established that an Advocate appearing for the accused has no authority to admit any document contrary to the interest of the accused. Advocate is not appointed to give admission on behalf of accused contrary to law. As per provision of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 53 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, though there is admission of fact, the Court may require proof of it. The prosecution in such case is duty-bound prove a mandatory requirement of Section 19 that sanctioning authority applied mind while according sanction and such admission of document is not substitute to it. Mere admitting the document is not sufficient and proving the fact that the mind was applied by the sanctioning authority while according sanction, is mandatory requirement of law. Such admission does not dispense with proof. It must be fulfilled. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the sanctioning authority applied its mind and then accorded the sanction to prosecute the appellant. Thus, sanction to prosecute the appellant is not proved. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2018

Decided On: 05.12.2025

Sharad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/9292/2025.

Print Page

Case Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment: The Superintending Engineer vs. The Labour Court, Madurai & Others

 

1.0 Factual Matrix: The Foundation of the Dispute

This analysis details a decade-long legal battle catalyzed by an employee's fundamental act of misconduct, which culminated in a landmark Supreme Court judgment clarifying a crucial intersection of Indian criminal and service law. The initial fraud set in motion a series of judicial interventions that tested the relationship between criminal probation and departmental disciplinary action. This section outlines the core facts that served as the genesis of the entire dispute.

Print Page

Himachal Pradesh HC: Owner of goods vehicle is liable to pay compensation regarding death or injury of gratuitous passenger travelling in his vehicle

The differentiation in two situations can be marked for the reason that in the former case of non-existence or non-holding of the driving license there still is a subsisting contract of insurance covering the risk of third party but in the other there is no contract covering the risk as no premium has been charged or paid for person not covered under the categories defined under section 147 of the Act or by a special contract.

32. Thus, the contention so raised merits rejection for the reason; firstly that there is no provision in the Act which allows the insurer to pay in the first instance and recover later from the insured where the claim relates to gratuitous passenger in a Goods Carriage Vehicle and secondly in view of the law settled in New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani, MANU/SC/1105/2002 : 2002:INSC:513 : 2003 ACJ (1), National Insurance Co. Vs. Baljeet Kaur, MANU/SC/0009/2004 : 2004:INSC:19 : 2004 ACJ 428. Both these judgments by three judges' benches expounded the law with respect to liability of insurer to indemnify the insured in respect of claims arising out of death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in a Goods carriage Vehicle and held in favour of insurer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni in MANU/SC/1418/2013 : (2018) 9 SCC 657 has kept the question of law open on the issue whether the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can direct the insurer to pay and recover, where the liability otherwise does not arise in case of gratuitous passenger. This court while expressing above view has drawn support from judgment passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aandi reported in MANU/TN/6503/2018 : 2019 ACJ 1975.

33. In view of above discussion, FAO No. 448 of 2018 is allowed. It is held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. The owner Amba Dutt is held liable to satisfy the award. The quantum of award is also modified to the extent as held above.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

FAO No. 448 of 2018 and FAO No. 34 of 2019

Decided On: 30.04.2025

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sheru and Ors.

Author: Satyen Vaidya, J.

 Citation: 2025:HHC:11512,MANU/HP/0601/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Legal heirs of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle are not entitled to get compensation from insurance Company

It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. {Para 20}

21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2004 

Decided On: 06.01.2004

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.N. Khare, C.J., S.B. Sinha and A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Author: V.N. Khare, C.J.

Citation: AIR 2004 SC 1340,MANU / SC / 0009 / 2004,( 2004 ) 2 SCC 1,[ 2004 ] 1 SCR 274.

Print Page