https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168699 Cheating was treated as occurring within British India because the misrepresentation and false certification were made there, so section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was not attracted. The alleged abetment by a public servant had no reasonable nexus with official duty, so section 197 did not require sanction. The joint trial was upheld because the joinder provisions in Chapter XIX permitted persons accused of offences and abetment of those offences to be tried together. The statutory minimum fine under section 10 of the Ordinance did not offend article 20, since the substantive offence already carried an unlimited fine under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. en-us Wed, 28 Oct 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168699 Cheating was treated as occurring within British India because the misrepresentation and false certification were made there, so section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was not attracted. The alleged abetment by a public servant had no reasonable nexus with official duty, so section 197 did not require sanction. The joint trial was upheld because the joinder provisions in Chapter XIX permitted persons accused of offences and abetment of those offences to be tried together. The statutory minimum fine under section 10 of the Ordinance did not offend article 20, since the substantive offence already carried an unlimited fine under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Oct 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168699