Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Sanction for prosecution of a public servant must be granted by the authority competent to remove the officer; a sanction accorded by a subordinate authority is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the sanction void ab initio and necessitating discharge, which was accordingly upheld and proceedings terminated. The statutory requirement in Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act is anchored in the constitutional safeguard of Article 311(1), and departmental circulars cannot cure the defect; the curative principle is inapplicable where a superior legal impediment exists (withdrawal of general consent), so no fresh sanction could sustain the prosecution.
Sanction for prosecution of a public servant must be granted by the authority competent to remove the officer; a sanction accorded by a subordinate authority is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the sanction void ab initio and necessitating discharge, which was accordingly upheld and proceedings terminated. The statutory requirement in Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act is anchored in the constitutional safeguard of Article 311(1), and departmental circulars cannot cure the defect; the curative principle is inapplicable where a superior legal impediment exists (withdrawal of general consent), so no fresh sanction could sustain the prosecution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.