<?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>1997 (4) TMI 524 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199027</link>
    <description>A Member of Parliament falls within the wider definition of &quot;public servant&quot; under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, because Section 2(c) is to be read purposively to include offices involving public duties. Prior sanction was not required on the facts, as cognizance was taken after dissolution of the earlier House and the alleged acts related to an earlier legislative term. The diaries and loose sheets relied on by the prosecution did not, without independent proof or corroboration, furnish admissible material sufficient to make out a prima facie case for framing charges. The charge orders were therefore set aside and the proceedings quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:18:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 524 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199027</link>
      <description>A Member of Parliament falls within the wider definition of &quot;public servant&quot; under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, because Section 2(c) is to be read purposively to include offices involving public duties. Prior sanction was not required on the facts, as cognizance was taken after dissolution of the earlier House and the alleged acts related to an earlier legislative term. The diaries and loose sheets relied on by the prosecution did not, without independent proof or corroboration, furnish admissible material sufficient to make out a prima facie case for framing charges. The charge orders were therefore set aside and the proceedings quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>