https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287905 Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld because it was granted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, an authority superior to the appointing officer and competent to remove the public servant, satisfying the statutory requirement. The Indian Police Act was also held to continue in force in Punjab after the Constitution commenced, since Article 372(1) preserves existing laws unless inconsistent with the Constitution, and later changes in legislative competence under Article 246 do not by themselves repeal pre-Constitution laws. The challenge therefore failed on both grounds, and the matter was remitted for trial in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2020 13:16:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287905 Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld because it was granted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, an authority superior to the appointing officer and competent to remove the public servant, satisfying the statutory requirement. The Indian Police Act was also held to continue in force in Punjab after the Constitution commenced, since Article 372(1) preserves existing laws unless inconsistent with the Constitution, and later changes in legislative competence under Article 246 do not by themselves repeal pre-Constitution laws. The challenge therefore failed on both grounds, and the matter was remitted for trial in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287905