<?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>2012 (11) TMI 1313 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299661</link>
    <description>Materials collected in investigation did not disclose the ingredients of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged foreign travel of accompanying persons at public expense was not shown to involve corrupt or illegal means, abuse of position, or obtaining a pecuniary advantage without public interest, because the record indicated that the accused remained on official duties and the accompanying persons assisted those duties. Mere departure from departmental norms, without dishonest intention, was insufficient. The prosecution was therefore held to be an abuse of process, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1313 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299661</link>
      <description>Materials collected in investigation did not disclose the ingredients of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged foreign travel of accompanying persons at public expense was not shown to involve corrupt or illegal means, abuse of position, or obtaining a pecuniary advantage without public interest, because the record indicated that the accused remained on official duties and the accompanying persons assisted those duties. Mere departure from departmental norms, without dishonest intention, was insufficient. The prosecution was therefore held to be an abuse of process, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>