https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279401 Written authorization by a Superintendent of Police was mandatory for investigation under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the prosecution had to prove compliance by producing the authorization document. Because the letter was not produced and no proper consideration of relevant witnesses and documents was shown, the investigation was held vitiated and unfair. Sanction for prosecution also had to rest on a valid delegation of power, and where the delegation was not placed on record, oral assertions could not establish competence; the sanction was therefore treated as invalid and without jurisdiction. The conviction and sentence could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:39:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279401 Written authorization by a Superintendent of Police was mandatory for investigation under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the prosecution had to prove compliance by producing the authorization document. Because the letter was not produced and no proper consideration of relevant witnesses and documents was shown, the investigation was held vitiated and unfair. Sanction for prosecution also had to rest on a valid delegation of power, and where the delegation was not placed on record, oral assertions could not establish competence; the sanction was therefore treated as invalid and without jurisdiction. The conviction and sentence could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279401