<?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>1995 (8) TMI 334 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275532</link>
    <description>Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is an administrative decision requiring the competent authority to apply its mind to the investigative material and form a prima facie view on whether offences are disclosed. It does not give the proposed accused a right to a pre-decisional hearing, and the absence of such hearing does not invalidate the sanction. Exoneration in departmental proceedings is not determinative of the criminal issue and does not bar or vitiate sanction where the investigation material supports prosecution. The order quashing sanction was set aside and the prosecution was allowed to proceed to trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Oct 2018 12:35:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 334 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275532</link>
      <description>Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is an administrative decision requiring the competent authority to apply its mind to the investigative material and form a prima facie view on whether offences are disclosed. It does not give the proposed accused a right to a pre-decisional hearing, and the absence of such hearing does not invalidate the sanction. Exoneration in departmental proceedings is not determinative of the criminal issue and does not bar or vitiate sanction where the investigation material supports prosecution. The order quashing sanction was set aside and the prosecution was allowed to proceed to trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>