<?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>2022 (1) TMI 1307 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305787</link>
    <description>Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required only where the alleged act has a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty; allegations of conspiracy, false declaration and concealment in obtaining an allotment were treated as outside that protection, so no sanction was needed on that basis. The amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was held prospective, not retrospective, because it created a new sanction requirement and the charge sheet had already been filed before the amendment; sanction was therefore not required under the amendment. Interference under Section 482 CrPC was declined because the prosecution could proceed and the matter required trial, so the proceedings were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:08:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1307 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305787</link>
      <description>Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required only where the alleged act has a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty; allegations of conspiracy, false declaration and concealment in obtaining an allotment were treated as outside that protection, so no sanction was needed on that basis. The amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was held prospective, not retrospective, because it created a new sanction requirement and the charge sheet had already been filed before the amendment; sanction was therefore not required under the amendment. Interference under Section 482 CrPC was declined because the prosecution could proceed and the matter required trial, so the proceedings were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>