https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426241 An order refusing discharge under Section 227 CrPC was not interfered with because the sanction objection failed on the legal basis that Section 137(1) of the Customs Act applies only to offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 and 135-A, while the alleged offences were under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The corruption sanction was issued under Section 19(1)(c) by the authority competent to remove the accused, and the record showed he was under the Central Excise establishment when sanction was granted. At most, any defect was an irregularity, not absence of sanction, and that point could not justify discharge. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2022 20:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426241 An order refusing discharge under Section 227 CrPC was not interfered with because the sanction objection failed on the legal basis that Section 137(1) of the Customs Act applies only to offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 and 135-A, while the alleged offences were under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The corruption sanction was issued under Section 19(1)(c) by the authority competent to remove the accused, and the record showed he was under the Central Excise establishment when sanction was granted. At most, any defect was an irregularity, not absence of sanction, and that point could not justify discharge. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426241