<?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>2005 (10) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280522</link>
    <description>Protection under Section 197 CrPC applies only where the accused is a public servant acting in connection with official duty. A State officer deputed as Managing Director of a cooperative society was found not to fall within Section 21 IPC because his salary was not paid by the Government and he was not in State service at the relevant time. The definition of government employee in the Haryana Civil Services Rules could not be imported into Section 197, and the statutory fiction in the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act applied only to specified categories of employees. As the alleged act was not shown to be part of official duty, prior sanction was not required and the criminal proceedings could continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2019 17:32:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 587 - SUPREME COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280522</link>
      <description>Protection under Section 197 CrPC applies only where the accused is a public servant acting in connection with official duty. A State officer deputed as Managing Director of a cooperative society was found not to fall within Section 21 IPC because his salary was not paid by the Government and he was not in State service at the relevant time. The definition of government employee in the Haryana Civil Services Rules could not be imported into Section 197, and the statutory fiction in the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act applied only to specified categories of employees. As the alleged act was not shown to be part of official duty, prior sanction was not required and the criminal proceedings could continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>