Subscribe

Thursday, 1 October 2026

2 updates · all days

Bombay High Court ·1 Oct 2026 ·Corruption

Bombay HC at Goa quashes cognizance in Customs corruption case taken without prior sanction under the PC Act

The question: Is an order taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act valid if the sanction under Section 19 is obtained only afterwards?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed the order taking cognizance of corruption and conspiracy charges against an Assistant Commissioner of Customs and three others, holding that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance without a prior sanction. Justice Valmiki Menezes also held that, on the material in the CBI's chargesheet, no offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was prima facie made out, so there was no point in sending the matter back to the trial court. The accused stand discharged. The CBI alleged that between 2017 and 2019 Accused No. 1, then Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Goa, conspired with a private person, Accused No. 2, to defraud the Customs Department. He allegedly issued 114 work orders for furniture, electrical and renovation work at the Customs House, 80 of them without following the tender procedure, to four fictitious firms floated by Accused No. 2. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, employees of Accused No. 2, allegedly created forged documents to open bank accounts and obtain the work orders. The Special Judge, South Goa at Margao, took cognizance on 29 April 2022 without any sanction under Section 19 of the Act. Sanction was granted on 5 May 2022, limited to the Act, and produced on 1 June 2022. By an order of 10 November 2023, the Special Judge discharged Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the IPC offences but directed a charge under the Act, and discharged Accused No. 3 completely. Three accused and the State challenged this.

Dismissed CRIR/208/2026
Telangana High Court ·1 Oct 2026 ·Property ★ Editor's pick

Telangana HC: Property bought in one legal heir's name without proof of self-earning falls in the joint family pool

The question: Are Schedule A, C and D properties, which the eldest son accepted as ancestral, available for partition as joint family property?

The Telangana High Court has dismissed an appeal that had been pending since 2000 in a family partition dispute, holding that once a joint family nucleus is shown to exist, any property purchased in the name of one legal heir, without evidence of self-earning, falls in the common pool of joint family properties. Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao confirmed the judgment and decree of 1 December 1999 of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, in O.S. No. 1 of 1994, which had ordered partition of all four schedules of property. The suit was filed by the mother, her youngest son, her daughter and the youngest son's wife against the eldest son and his wife. They said that land left by the family's father, Yeddula Yella Reddy, who died without a will on 9 September 1989, and other properties purchased later, was joint family property. The eldest son accepted that Schedules A, C and D were ancestral, but said that Schedule B was bought with his own funds and was his self-acquired property. The mother died on 17 March 1996, while the suit was pending, after leaving a registered Will in favour of her youngest son. The trial court decreed the suit and directed the plaintiffs to apply for an Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds for a final decree. The eldest son and his wife appealed. The appeal was reserved on 2 July 2026 and decided on 1 October 2026.

Dismissed AS/191/2000