<?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>2016 (6) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328631</link>
    <description>Protection under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was unavailable because the provision had already been struck down as unconstitutional and could not bar investigation or prosecution. Sanction under Section 197 CrPC was unnecessary because the alleged conspiracy and corruption were not shown to arise out of official duty or bear a direct nexus with public functions. At the charge stage, the court found that recorded conversations, recovery of money and the approver&#039;s statement disclosed sufficient material to raise a strong suspicion; disputed issues on demand, acceptance, electronic evidence and credibility were matters for trial. The challenge to the charge and the request to quash the proceedings therefore failed, and the trial was allowed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:29:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328631</link>
      <description>Protection under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was unavailable because the provision had already been struck down as unconstitutional and could not bar investigation or prosecution. Sanction under Section 197 CrPC was unnecessary because the alleged conspiracy and corruption were not shown to arise out of official duty or bear a direct nexus with public functions. At the charge stage, the court found that recorded conversations, recovery of money and the approver&#039;s statement disclosed sufficient material to raise a strong suspicion; disputed issues on demand, acceptance, electronic evidence and credibility were matters for trial. The challenge to the charge and the request to quash the proceedings therefore failed, and the trial was allowed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>