<?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>2020 (4) TMI 882 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294302</link>
    <description>The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was construed broadly to focus on public duty, and the term &quot;University&quot; in Section 2(c)(xi) was held to include a deemed university because the anti-corruption statute serves a different object from the University Grants Commission Act. On that basis, a trustee connected with a deemed university was not excluded from the definition of &quot;public servant&quot; where the record indicated involvement in institutional functions such as examinations. At the discharge stage under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court need only assess whether sufficient ground exists to proceed; as the material disclosed grave suspicion and a prima facie case regarding illegal gratification linked to examinations, discharge was held unwarranted and trial was permitted to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=640841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 882 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294302</link>
      <description>The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was construed broadly to focus on public duty, and the term &quot;University&quot; in Section 2(c)(xi) was held to include a deemed university because the anti-corruption statute serves a different object from the University Grants Commission Act. On that basis, a trustee connected with a deemed university was not excluded from the definition of &quot;public servant&quot; where the record indicated involvement in institutional functions such as examinations. At the discharge stage under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court need only assess whether sufficient ground exists to proceed; as the material disclosed grave suspicion and a prima facie case regarding illegal gratification linked to examinations, discharge was held unwarranted and trial was permitted to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>