<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (5) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213007</link>
    <description>Consent of the competent authority under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is a jurisdictional precondition for trial, and a valid sanction issued later may be placed on record so the prosecution can proceed. The District Magistrate&#039;s letter stating that offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 were prima facie made out was held to be good and valid consent, and the Sessions Judge was found to have erred in rejecting it. The later application was treated as one to regularise the record, not to revive a refused prosecution. Delay in obtaining and producing consent was not treated as fatal because no prior refusal had been made and the matter involved a serious incident.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 08:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213007</link>
      <description>Consent of the competent authority under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is a jurisdictional precondition for trial, and a valid sanction issued later may be placed on record so the prosecution can proceed. The District Magistrate&#039;s letter stating that offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 were prima facie made out was held to be good and valid consent, and the Sessions Judge was found to have erred in rejecting it. The later application was treated as one to regularise the record, not to revive a refused prosecution. Delay in obtaining and producing consent was not treated as fatal because no prior refusal had been made and the matter involved a serious incident.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>