https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277396 Protection for acts done in official duty did not extend to receipt of illegal gratification, so objections based on want of consent under Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, failed. The accused also did not show that he fell within the class covered by Section 197, and the special procedure under Ordinance 29 of 1943 excluded that provision in any event. On the merits, the bribery charge failed because the accomplice evidence was unsatisfactory and self-contradictory, and the surrounding circumstances left a reasonable possibility that the money was received as a deposit on account of demurrage. The conviction could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 1944 00:00:00 +0630 Mon, 03 Dec 2018 14:02:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277396 Protection for acts done in official duty did not extend to receipt of illegal gratification, so objections based on want of consent under Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, failed. The accused also did not show that he fell within the class covered by Section 197, and the special procedure under Ordinance 29 of 1943 excluded that provision in any event. On the merits, the bribery charge failed because the accomplice evidence was unsatisfactory and self-contradictory, and the surrounding circumstances left a reasonable possibility that the money was received as a deposit on account of demurrage. The conviction could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Apr 1944 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277396