<?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>1948 (4) TMI 10 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289678</link>
    <description>Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was construed as applying to civil or criminal proceedings under the ordinary law, not to court-martial proceedings governed by military law. On that reading, prior sanction of the Governor-General was not required before trial, because the statutory safeguards and consequences in Section 270 were incompatible with military discipline and the need for prompt punishment under the Army Act. The same result followed independently because the charges concerned fraudulent misapplication of money entrusted to the accused, which could not reasonably be treated as acts done in the execution of official duty. The sanction challenge therefore failed, and the court-martial conviction was not open to attack on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:56:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1948 (4) TMI 10 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289678</link>
      <description>Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was construed as applying to civil or criminal proceedings under the ordinary law, not to court-martial proceedings governed by military law. On that reading, prior sanction of the Governor-General was not required before trial, because the statutory safeguards and consequences in Section 270 were incompatible with military discipline and the need for prompt punishment under the Army Act. The same result followed independently because the charges concerned fraudulent misapplication of money entrusted to the accused, which could not reasonably be treated as acts done in the execution of official duty. The sanction challenge therefore failed, and the court-martial conviction was not open to attack on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>