The High Court, has companye to the finding that all the relevant materials including the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer had number been placed for companysideration by the City Commissioner of Police, Madras because only a report of the Vigilance Department was placed before him.
3/90 Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Madras .
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26 7 1995 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The respondent was a Sub Inspector of Police, Crimes attached to Saidapet Police Station.
Before the High Court, it was alleged by the appellant that the said criminal case was number maintainable for number obtaining proper sanction required to be given by the appropriate authority for proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9 of 1993.
He was companyvicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Madras by the said order dated 18 12 1992 for the offence under Sections 7, 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d i ii of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the companysequential sentence passed for such offences.
Such appeal was preferred by the respondent Mr. M.M. Rajendran against the judgment of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Madras dated 18 12 1992 passed in CC No.
1 of 1991 Crime No.
