As per the settled position of law, the act of the Court shall prejudice no one and in such a fact situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit shall be applicable. As per the settled law, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor by the act of the Court.
In the absence of the authority and power with the Sub-Inspector to take action as per the Order, the proceedings initiated by him will be totally unauthorised and have to be struck down.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The judgment in Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. case does not lay down the correct law and is in conflict with judgments of the Constitution Benches rendered prior and later to it, including in L. Chandra Kumar case, S.N. Mukherjee26 case, and Rojer Mathew case making it abundantly clear that there is no per se restriction on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. However, in respect of matters of self-discipline, the principles already stand enunciated.