SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am in respectful agreement with the judgment drafted by brother Variava, J. When Parliament imposed an undiluted ban against granting stay of any proceedings involving an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on any ground whatsoever, no Court shall circumvent the said ban through any means. The reasons which prompted the Parliament to divest all the Courts in India of the power to stay the proceedings in the trial Courts involving any such offence, is to foreclose even the possible chance of delaying such trials on account of any party to such proceedings raising any question before the High Court during the pendency of trial proceedings.

(2.) In the Objects and Reasons for bringing the Act with new measures the law-makers declared it in abundantly clear terms that a provision prohibiting the grant of stay is included in the statute for speeding up the proceedings. This can be discerned from the following words :

(3.) The prohibition is couched in a language admitting of no exception whatsoever, which is clear from the provision itself. The prohibition is incorporated in sub-section (3) of S. 19 of the Act. The sub-section consists of three clauses. For all the three clauses the controlling non-obstante words are set out in the commencing portion as :