<?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>2001 (5) TMI 981 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308190</link>
    <description>Police officers were held to fall within the State notification covering members of the Bombay Police Force charged with maintenance of public order, read broadly as identifying the notified class rather than limiting protection to acts directly tied to public order. Applying the test of reasonable connection with official duty, the Court treated arrest, confinement and non-production before a Magistrate as acts done in the discharge or purported discharge of official duty because they arose from police handling of cognizable offences and custody in the same transaction. The statutory bar therefore applied, sanction was necessary, and the complaint could not proceed without it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2023 17:03:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 981 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308190</link>
      <description>Police officers were held to fall within the State notification covering members of the Bombay Police Force charged with maintenance of public order, read broadly as identifying the notified class rather than limiting protection to acts directly tied to public order. Applying the test of reasonable connection with official duty, the Court treated arrest, confinement and non-production before a Magistrate as acts done in the discharge or purported discharge of official duty because they arose from police handling of cognizable offences and custody in the same transaction. The statutory bar therefore applied, sanction was necessary, and the complaint could not proceed without it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>