{"id":19220,"date":"2004-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004"},"modified":"2017-11-01T09:34:34","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T04:04:34","slug":"stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"State(Anti Corruption &#8230; vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State(Anti Corruption &#8230; vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  478 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState(Anti Corruption Branch)Delhi &amp; Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr.      \t   \t \t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3964\/2003)<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court held that the sanction granted by the Governing<\/p>\n<p> Body of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short<br \/>\nthe &#8216;AIIMS&#8217;) to proceed against respondent no.1-employee<br \/>\nwas legally not sustainable. Accordingly the proceedings<br \/>\npursuant to the said sanction were quashed. The High Court<br \/>\nwas of the view that when the President who is the Chairman<br \/>\nof the Governing Body had suggested that sanction was not to<br \/>\nbe granted, it was not open to the Governing Body to pass an<br \/>\norder directing grant of sanction. The President had<br \/>\ndirected the matter to be placed before the Governing Body,<br \/>\nit was incumbent upon the latter to examine that question<br \/>\nalone and if a contrary view was to be taken, that was<br \/>\nsubject to passing of a reasoned order showing application<br \/>\nof mind. Since that was not done, the order of the Governing<br \/>\nBody was vulnerable and deserved to be nullified. Further<br \/>\nthe order of suspension, which was passed and was continued,<br \/>\nwas vacated on the ground that same was continuing for a<br \/>\nlong time without a review of the necessity for continuance<br \/>\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>Since the pivotal question is whether the Governing<br \/>\nBody&#8217;s decision suffered from any infirmity, a brief<br \/>\nreference to the factual background would suffice.\n<\/p>\n<p>On 8.5.1998 a complaint was registered against<br \/>\nrespondent no. 1 on the basis of allegations made by one<br \/>\nSagir Ahmad Khan who was supplying materials to AIIMS. It<br \/>\nwas alleged in the complaint that the respondent no. 1 had<br \/>\ndemanded illegal gratification for reviewing an order of<br \/>\ncancellation and for placing orders to make further supplies<br \/>\nby renewal of contract. The complainant produced cassettes<br \/>\nof tapes containing recorded conversation between himself<br \/>\nand the respondent no. 1. The transcript of the same was<br \/>\nprepared and placed on record. On 20.7.1998 the complainant<br \/>\napproached the Anti Corruption Branch (for short &#8216;ACB&#8217;)<br \/>\nafter fixing the time and the amount of money with<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1. The complainant produced currency notes of<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- before an officer of the ACB. The investigating<br \/>\nofficer prepared several memos, recorded the number of notes<br \/>\nand applied Phenolphthalein powder on the notes and told the<br \/>\ncomplainant and the panch witnesses about the procedure to<br \/>\nbe adopted. A remote tape recording system was used to<br \/>\ncollect additional evidence for laying the trap. On the<br \/>\nbasis of the conversation recorded and after the acceptance<br \/>\nof money by the respondent No. 1, recovery was made and<br \/>\npositive tests indicating presence of Phenolphthalein in the<br \/>\ncolourless solution of sodium carbonate was noted. A<br \/>\npositive report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was<br \/>\nalso received regarding hand wash and pant pocket wash.<br \/>\nThough a similar procedure was intended for another person<br \/>\nsame could not be materialised as the situation at AIIMS<br \/>\nturned violent.\n<\/p>\n<p>By an order dated 29.7.1998 respondent no. 1 was placed<br \/>\nunder suspension by the AIIMS with effect from 20.7.1998.<br \/>\nThe appellant No. 1 requested AIIMS for a sanction for<br \/>\nprosecuting respondent No.1. AIIMS sought certain<br \/>\nclarification from the Ministry of Law and Justice and the<br \/>\nCentral Vigilance Commission (in short the &#8216;CVC&#8217;). They did<br \/>\nnot recommend grant of sanction to prosecute. The President<br \/>\nof AIIMS passed an order on 22.3.2000 revoking the order of<br \/>\nsuspension, and declining grant of sanction to prosecute<br \/>\nsubject to ratification by the Governing Body.\n<\/p>\n<p>On 3.4.2000 the Governing Body passed an order<br \/>\nsuperseding the order of the President dated 22.3.2000 and<br \/>\nthe respondent No. 1 was consequently placed under<br \/>\nsuspension.\n<\/p>\n<p>On 17.4.2000 the respondent no. 1 filed a Criminal Writ<br \/>\nPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution, 1950 (in<br \/>\nshort the &#8216;Constitution&#8217;) read with Section 482 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the &#8216;Code&#8217;) for<br \/>\nquashing the order dated 3.4.2000 and seeking other reliefs<br \/>\nalso. The stand of respondent no. 1 was that opinion of<br \/>\nMinistry of Law and Justice is binding on the Governing body<br \/>\nof AIIMS. Once the President of AIIMS has exercised the<br \/>\npower it was not open to be re-considered by the Governing<br \/>\nBody and there was non-application of mind on the part of<br \/>\nthe Governing Body while granting sanction. Since the tape<br \/>\nrecorded conversation or the transcript of the report of the<br \/>\nACB was not produced before the Governing Body continuance<br \/>\nof suspension and grant of sanction was bad. The Delhi<br \/>\nPolice had no jurisdiction to register a case against the<br \/>\nwrit petitioner as he was a Central Government employee and<br \/>\nthe sanction ought to have been routed through Central<br \/>\nBureau of Investigation (in short the &#8216;CBI&#8217;) as opined by<br \/>\nthe CVC and the Ministry of Law and Justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>The present appellants filed reply by counter<br \/>\naffidavit, taking the stand that the sanction had been given<br \/>\nafter due consideration and there was sufficient evidence<br \/>\njustifying the sanction. Since charge sheet had also been<br \/>\nfiled on 28.4.2000 in the Court of the Special Judge Tis<br \/>\nHazari, Delhi and cognizance had been taken, the writ<br \/>\npetitioner was not entitled to any relief. It was also<br \/>\nfurther pointed out that ACB has jurisdiction in view of the<br \/>\nnotification issued by the Ministry of Home Department,<br \/>\nGovt. of NCT.  The High Court allowed the Writ Application<br \/>\nprimarily on the ground that the Governing Body cannot<br \/>\nsupersede the decision of the President of AIIMS and there<br \/>\nwas no material for granting sanction since records were not<br \/>\nproduced before the Governing Body for the purpose of<br \/>\nassessing whether it was a fit case for granting sanction.\n<\/p>\n<p>In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that the High Court&#8217;s approach is<br \/>\nclearly erroneous. Section 19 of the Prevention of<br \/>\nCorruption Act, 1988 (in short &#8216;the Act&#8217;) refers to the<br \/>\nauthorities competent to remove the concerned officers. The<br \/>\npresent case is covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of<br \/>\nSection 19. By notification dated 25th February, 1999<br \/>\nissued under sub-section (1) of Section 29 of All India<br \/>\nInstitute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (in short the<br \/>\n&#8216;Act&#8217;), Regulations were brought into operation and the<br \/>\nRegulations are called &#8220;All India Institute of Medical<br \/>\nSciences Regulations, 1999 (in short the &#8216;Regulations&#8217;). In<br \/>\nSchedule II, relating to the Appointing Disciplinary and<br \/>\nAppellate Authorities for various posts in the Institute, it<br \/>\nhas been clearly stipulated that for Group &#8216;A&#8217; posts other<br \/>\nthan the &#8220;Director&#8221;, the Appointing Authority is the<br \/>\nGoverning Body, and the Disciplinary Authority in respect of<br \/>\nvarious penalties are the Governing Body except in respect<br \/>\nof penalties (i) to (iv) for which President alone is the<br \/>\nconcerned Authority. Above being the position, so far as the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 is concerned, it is the Governing Body<br \/>\nalone which had the authority to decide on the question of<br \/>\nsanction. The High Court proceeded as if the decision was<br \/>\nthat of the President and it was to be ratified by the<br \/>\nGoverning Body. There was no question of any ratification<br \/>\nbecause the plenary powers vested with the Governing Body<br \/>\nalone and the President has no role to play.  With reference<br \/>\nto the Central Civil Services Classification Control and<br \/>\nAppeal Rules (in short the `CCA Rules&#8217;) relating to<br \/>\npenalties and disciplinary authorities, particularly Part V<br \/>\nit was pointed out that the major penalty was to be imposed<br \/>\non respondent no. 1. Therefore, it was the Governing Body<br \/>\nalone which had the jurisdiction to accord sanction.  There<br \/>\nwas no question of recording any reasons for departing from<br \/>\nthe President&#8217;s view, as that is not a requirement in law.<br \/>\nThe concept of the ratification has been wrongly introduced<br \/>\nby the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn response Mr. K. Ramamoorty, learned senior counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that though the Governing Body had the<br \/>\njurisdiction to accord sanction, the view of the President<br \/>\nshould not have been brushed aside lightly and as noted by<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1992131\/\">Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of<br \/>\nGujarat<\/a> [1997 (7) SCC 622], the grant of sanction cannot be<br \/>\nan empty formality, and an application of mind was<br \/>\nimperative.\n<\/p>\n<p>We find from the judgment of the High Court that it<br \/>\nproceeded on the premises that the sanctioning authority is<br \/>\nto apply its own independent mind, and it was applied by the<br \/>\nPresident and he sought for ratification by Governing Body.<br \/>\nThe approach is clearly erroneous.  The sanctioning body was<br \/>\nnot the President and it was the Governing Body.  This<br \/>\nposition is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 and cannot be disputed in the teeth of<br \/>\nspecific provisions contained in Schedule II to the<br \/>\nstatutory Regulations. But according to him since the<br \/>\nPresident had expressed his views, for taking different<br \/>\nview, reasons should have been indicated. Such pleas clearly<br \/>\nare without any substance.  When the Authority competent to<br \/>\naccord sanction is the Governing body under the statutory<br \/>\nRegulations and that body, as in this case takes a decision<br \/>\nthere was no necessity for recording reasons to differ from<br \/>\nthe view expressed by the President who had legally no role<br \/>\nto play. The allocation of powers distinctly made by the<br \/>\nstatutory Regulations earmarking their own fields, subjects<br \/>\nand topics cannot be legitimately ignored, on any<br \/>\nassumptions or baseless presumptions.  As long as the<br \/>\nPresident had no individual role to play in matters<br \/>\nexclusively earmarked and allocated to the Governing Body<br \/>\nand the decision of the Governing Body as that of any body<br \/>\nhas to be collective one, neither the President could<br \/>\ndictate what and how the Governing Body has to exercise its<br \/>\npowers nor the Governing Body is obligated in any manner to<br \/>\ndeal with and give reasons to differ from the view expressed<br \/>\nby the President, which, as noticed above he could not have<br \/>\nin the light of the statutory Regulations themselves.  There<br \/>\nis no justification in law or any principle of construction<br \/>\nto import any such restriction on the independent exercise<br \/>\nof power by the earmarked Authority on its own under the<br \/>\nRegulations.  The President cannot impede or foreclose the<br \/>\nliberty of the Governing Body by expressing his view or by<br \/>\npassing even a provisional order subject to ratification,<br \/>\nwherein under the statutory Regulations, he had none, at<br \/>\nall.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ratification is noun of the verb &#8220;ratify&#8221;.  It means<br \/>\nthe act of ratifying, confirmation, and sanction. The<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;ratify&#8221; means to approve and accept formally.<br \/>\nIt means to conform, by expressing consent, approval or<br \/>\nformal sanction.  &#8220;Approve&#8221; means to have or express a<br \/>\nfavourable opinion of, to accept as satisfactory.  In the<br \/>\ninstant case, there was no question of any ratification<br \/>\ninvolved as wrongly assumed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The counter affidavit of the present appellant before<br \/>\nthe High Court clearly indicated that relevant aspects were<br \/>\nnoted by the Governing Body before arriving at its decision.<br \/>\nHigh Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that since<br \/>\nthe basic material, or evidence i.e. alleged tape<br \/>\nconversation, was not looked into by the Governing Body to<br \/>\nform its own independent opinion to depart from the view of<br \/>\nPresident, the sanction was contrary to law.  In Kalpnath<br \/>\nRai v. State (through CBI) (1997 (8) SCC 732), it was<br \/>\nclearly observed by this Court that the sanctioning<br \/>\nauthority is not required to wait for the report of the<br \/>\nexperts.  The sanctioning authority has only to see whether<br \/>\nthe facts disclosed in the complaint prima facie disclose<br \/>\ncommission of an offence or not. The actual production of<br \/>\nthe tapes etc., are matters for proof during trial and not<br \/>\nnecessarily to be undertaken at this stage. It is true as<br \/>\ncontended by learned counsel for respondent no.1, grant of<br \/>\nsanction is not empty formality.\n<\/p>\n<p>The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend<br \/>\nupon the material placed before the sanctioning authority<br \/>\nand the fact that all the relevant facts, material and<br \/>\nevidence including the transcript of the tape record have<br \/>\nbeen considered by the sanctioning authority.  Consideration<br \/>\nimplies application of mind.  The order of sanction must ex<br \/>\nfacie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered<br \/>\nthe evidence and other material placed before it.  This fact<br \/>\ncan also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the<br \/>\nrelevant files before the Court to show that all relevant<br \/>\nfacts were considered by the sanctioning authority. [See<br \/>\nJaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 124) and <a href=\"\/doc\/343981\/\">State<br \/>\nof Bihar v. P.P. Sharma<\/a> (1992 Supp(1) SCC 222)].\n<\/p>\n<p>The position was reiterated in Manusukhlal&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra). The order dated 3.4.2000 passed by the Governing<br \/>\nBody cannot be said to be deficient in any way in meeting<br \/>\nthe requirements of law. No other point was urged on behalf<br \/>\nof the respondent no.1 to justify the High Court&#8217;s order.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the aforesaid background the High Court&#8217;s judgment<br \/>\nis indefensible and is quashed. The matter pending before<br \/>\nthe Special Judge shall now proceed in accordance with law.<br \/>\nWe make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on<br \/>\nthe merits of the case, which relates to the actual proof of<br \/>\nthe charge before the competent Court during trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State(Anti Corruption &#8230; vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 478 of 2004 PETITIONER: State(Anti Corruption Branch)Delhi &amp; Anr. RESPONDENT: Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/04\/2004 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State(Anti Corruption ... vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State(Anti Corruption ... vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T04:04:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State(Anti Corruption &#8230; vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T04:04:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2160,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004\",\"name\":\"State(Anti Corruption ... vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T04:04:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State(Anti Corruption &#8230; vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State(Anti Corruption ... vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State(Anti Corruption ... vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T04:04:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State(Anti Corruption &#8230; vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T04:04:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004"},"wordCount":2160,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004","name":"State(Anti Corruption ... vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T04:04:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stateanti-corruption-vs-dr-r-c-anand-anr-on-15-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State(Anti Corruption &#8230; vs Dr. R.C. Anand &amp; Anr on 15 April, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}