<?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>2006 (10) TMI 437 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175394</link>
    <description>Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was treated as operative and mandatory for inquiry or investigation against a protected Central Government officer, requiring prior Central Government approval before the CBI could proceed. The Court held that registration of the case, laying of the trap and continuation of the investigation without such approval contravened section 6A(1), and section 6A(2) did not justify a pre-planned trap after investigation had begun. Although an illegal investigation does not automatically nullify a later trial, the defect was raised at an early stage, so the proper course was reinvestigation rather than continuation of the tainted proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:38:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 437 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175394</link>
      <description>Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was treated as operative and mandatory for inquiry or investigation against a protected Central Government officer, requiring prior Central Government approval before the CBI could proceed. The Court held that registration of the case, laying of the trap and continuation of the investigation without such approval contravened section 6A(1), and section 6A(2) did not justify a pre-planned trap after investigation had begun. Although an illegal investigation does not automatically nullify a later trial, the defect was raised at an early stage, so the proper course was reinvestigation rather than continuation of the tainted proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>