<?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>2011 (11) TMI 856 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297359</link>
    <description>Where reliable material disclosed serious administrative and financial irregularities in the implementation and utilisation of NRHM funds, the Allahabad HC held that a CBI preliminary enquiry was warranted on a prima facie basis. Audit reports, mission reports, government communications and related records showed deficiencies in supervision, fund flow, procurement and monitoring, and the Court treated those circumstances as sufficient for independent enquiry by an outside agency. The Court also held that it was not required to await the CAG report, because audit scrutiny and CBI enquiry operate on different fields, and rejected the objection that the CBI lacked competence to conduct a preliminary enquiry. It therefore upheld direction for an all-State preliminary enquiry, with liberty to register regular cases if cognisable offences emerged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 856 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297359</link>
      <description>Where reliable material disclosed serious administrative and financial irregularities in the implementation and utilisation of NRHM funds, the Allahabad HC held that a CBI preliminary enquiry was warranted on a prima facie basis. Audit reports, mission reports, government communications and related records showed deficiencies in supervision, fund flow, procurement and monitoring, and the Court treated those circumstances as sufficient for independent enquiry by an outside agency. The Court also held that it was not required to await the CAG report, because audit scrutiny and CBI enquiry operate on different fields, and rejected the objection that the CBI lacked competence to conduct a preliminary enquiry. It therefore upheld direction for an all-State preliminary enquiry, with liberty to register regular cases if cognisable offences emerged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>