<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1443 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189428</link>
    <description>Section 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, read with section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governs appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for proceedings before the Special Court. The Supreme Court treated the office of Public Prosecutor as part of the administration of justice, not a civil post or master-servant appointment, and construed the word &quot;under&quot; in section 46(2) consistently with institutional independence and statutory eligibility. It also noted that a person on the government panel may satisfy the requirement for appointment. On that basis, the objection to the proposed advocate&#039;s appointment was rejected and the advocate was found fit for appointment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:04:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1443 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189428</link>
      <description>Section 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, read with section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governs appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for proceedings before the Special Court. The Supreme Court treated the office of Public Prosecutor as part of the administration of justice, not a civil post or master-servant appointment, and construed the word &quot;under&quot; in section 46(2) consistently with institutional independence and statutory eligibility. It also noted that a person on the government panel may satisfy the requirement for appointment. On that basis, the objection to the proposed advocate&#039;s appointment was rejected and the advocate was found fit for appointment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>