https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400128 A defect in authorisation under the Prevention of Corruption Act was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, because the investigation was registered by the Superintendent of Police, a written order authorised the PSI, and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown; the sanction objection also failed. Non-examination of the investigating officer was not fatal where the case was supported by proved documentary evidence and no unexplored defence was established. The first appellant's conviction for disproportionate assets and sentence were sustained on clear evidence of income, expenditure and assets beyond known sources. The abetment charge against the second appellant failed for want of proof of knowledge or intentional participation. en-us Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Oct 2020 09:26:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400128 A defect in authorisation under the Prevention of Corruption Act was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, because the investigation was registered by the Superintendent of Police, a written order authorised the PSI, and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown; the sanction objection also failed. Non-examination of the investigating officer was not fatal where the case was supported by proved documentary evidence and no unexplored defence was established. The first appellant's conviction for disproportionate assets and sentence were sustained on clear evidence of income, expenditure and assets beyond known sources. The abetment charge against the second appellant failed for want of proof of knowledge or intentional participation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400128