<?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>2019 (11) TMI 1134 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388885</link>
    <description>Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not require prior approval when the allegations disclose a prima facie demand or attempt to accept illegal gratification, because such conduct is not a protected recommendation or decision taken in discharge of official functions. The proviso to Section 17A applies to undue-advantage cases, and prima facie electronic material, including video evidence, was treated as sufficient to bring the matter within that exception. The interpretation distinguishes bona fide official action from conduct that is ex facie criminal, so the challenge to the FIR on the ground of prior approval failed and the investigation was permitted to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2020 16:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1134 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388885</link>
      <description>Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not require prior approval when the allegations disclose a prima facie demand or attempt to accept illegal gratification, because such conduct is not a protected recommendation or decision taken in discharge of official functions. The proviso to Section 17A applies to undue-advantage cases, and prima facie electronic material, including video evidence, was treated as sufficient to bring the matter within that exception. The interpretation distinguishes bona fide official action from conduct that is ex facie criminal, so the challenge to the FIR on the ground of prior approval failed and the investigation was permitted to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>