<?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>1984 (2) TMI 351 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172568</link>
    <description>A Member of the Legislative Assembly is not a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code merely because of legislative office, salary or allowances, or participation in legislative business; the Court held that such functions do not fit the relevant statutory categories. Under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sanction is required only when the accused is a public servant at the time cognizance is sought and the sanction must come from the authority competent to remove the accused from the office alleged to have been abused. Because the accused had ceased to hold the office complained of, no sanction was required on these facts and the prosecution could proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (2) TMI 351 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172568</link>
      <description>A Member of the Legislative Assembly is not a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code merely because of legislative office, salary or allowances, or participation in legislative business; the Court held that such functions do not fit the relevant statutory categories. Under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sanction is required only when the accused is a public servant at the time cognizance is sought and the sanction must come from the authority competent to remove the accused from the office alleged to have been abused. Because the accused had ceased to hold the office complained of, no sanction was required on these facts and the prosecution could proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>