<?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>1982 (7) TMI 271 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274935</link>
    <description>Non-conforming user prosecutions were treated as involving a continuing offence, so limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code was assessed by reference to the continuing nature of the breach and the exclusions applicable for notice and sanction; on that basis, the complaints were within time. Prior sanction under section 197 CrPC was held unnecessary because the chairman and directors of nationalised banks were not treated as qualifying public servants acting in discharge of official duty for that purpose. The article states that both limitation and sanction objections failed, and the prosecutions were upheld on those grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:38:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (7) TMI 271 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274935</link>
      <description>Non-conforming user prosecutions were treated as involving a continuing offence, so limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code was assessed by reference to the continuing nature of the breach and the exclusions applicable for notice and sanction; on that basis, the complaints were within time. Prior sanction under section 197 CrPC was held unnecessary because the chairman and directors of nationalised banks were not treated as qualifying public servants acting in discharge of official duty for that purpose. The article states that both limitation and sanction objections failed, and the prosecutions were upheld on those grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>