Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Convictions overturned for lack of sanction, one upheld for involvement in criminal breach of trust</h1> <h3>BAIJNATH GUPTA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH</h3> BAIJNATH GUPTA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 1966 AIR 220, 1966 SCR (1) 210 Issues Involved:1. Whether the conviction of appellant Gupta under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was valid without the prior sanction of the State Government.2. Whether the conviction of appellant Gupta under Section 477A read with Section 109 of the IPC was valid without the prior sanction of the State Government.3. Whether the conviction of appellant Kale under Sections 477A and 409/109 of the IPC was valid.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction of Appellant Gupta under Section 409 IPC:The primary issue was whether Gupta's conviction under Section 409 IPC could be sustained without the prior sanction of the State Government as required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Gupta, as the Chief Accountant-cum-Office Superintendent of the Madhya Bharat Electric Supply, was a public servant not removable without the sanction of the Madhya Bharat Government.Judgment Summary:- It was established that Gupta's alleged criminal misappropriation of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 21,450 was committed in his official capacity.- The court emphasized that for an offence under Section 409 IPC, the necessity of sanction depends on whether the act was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.- Citing precedents like *Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown* and *Amrik Singh v. State of PEPSU*, the court concluded that Gupta could claim that his actions were done in virtue of his office, making the sanction necessary.- Since the sanction was obtained after cognizance was taken, the court held that the conviction under Section 409 IPC was unsustainable in the absence of the necessary sanction.2. Conviction of Appellant Gupta under Section 477A read with Section 109 IPC:This issue questioned the validity of Gupta's conviction for falsification of accounts without the State Government's sanction.Judgment Summary:- The court noted that falsification of accounts under Section 477A IPC involves acts directly connected with the official duties of the public servant.- The court held that the sanction was necessary for this charge as well, given that the acts were committed within the scope of official duties, albeit in dereliction of them.- The absence of a proper sanction before taking cognizance rendered the conviction under Section 477A read with Section 109 IPC invalid.3. Conviction of Appellant Kale under Sections 477A and 409/109 IPC:Kale was charged with falsification of accounts and abetment of criminal breach of trust.Judgment Summary:- Kale's defense that he made the false entries at Gupta's instance and without fraudulent intent was rejected by the lower courts.- The court found that Kale wilfully made the false entries with the intent to defraud the Power House and abetted Gupta in the criminal misappropriation.- Evidence from witnesses corroborated that Kale and Gupta attempted to manipulate the accounts.- The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on Kale under Sections 477A and 409/109 IPC.Separate Judgments:- The majority judgment allowed Gupta's appeals, quashing his conviction under Section 477A IPC and maintaining his conviction under Section 409 IPC.- The separate judgment by Ramaswami J. concurred with the dismissal of Kale's appeals, maintaining his convictions under Sections 477A and 409/109 IPC.Conclusion:The court concluded that the convictions of Gupta under Sections 409 and 477A read with Section 109 IPC were unsustainable due to the absence of the necessary sanction under Section 197 CrPC. However, Kale's convictions were upheld based on the evidence and findings of the lower courts.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found