TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was required before prosecuting a public servant for an offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) Whether the alleged illegality in the police investigation, based on section 58(2) of the Bombay City Police Act, 1902 and section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, deprived the trial court of jurisdiction or could be entertained at the stage of appeal.
Issue (i): Whether sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was required before prosecuting a public servant for an offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The question had already been settled by authority holding that sanction was not necessary for a prosecution for acceptance of gratification under section 161. The grounds on which leave had been obtained could therefore not succeed.
Conclusion: Sanction under section 197 was not required, and the challenge on that ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged illegality in the police investigation, based on section 58(2) of the Bombay City Police Act, 1902 and section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, deprived the trial court of jurisdiction or could be entertained at the stage of appeal.
Analysis: The alleged defect, even if made out, would amount only to a procedural irregularity in the steps leading to the order authorising investigation. It did not affect the jurisdiction of the magistrate to try the case. The point was also not taken in the High Court and was outside the grounds on which special leave had been sought, so it was not entertained.
Conclusion: The alleged irregularity did not oust jurisdiction and the new ground was not entertained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A defect in the preliminary police investigation, even if unlawful, does not by itself deprive the criminal court of jurisdiction, and a ground not raised in the courts below or in the petition for special leave will ordinarily not be entertained on appeal.
TaxTMI 
