<?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>1987 (2) TMI 532 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309140</link>
    <description>Section 197 CrPC applies only where the accused is a public servant not removable from office except by, or with the sanction of, the Government, and the alleged act was done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. The SC noted that the appellant was not shown to hold such a post, and even if treated as a public servant, the statutory precondition for sanction was absent. The fact that the appointing or removing authority derived power from regulations under a parliamentary enactment did not make Government sanction for removal necessary. Sanction was therefore not required and prosecution could proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2023 10:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 532 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309140</link>
      <description>Section 197 CrPC applies only where the accused is a public servant not removable from office except by, or with the sanction of, the Government, and the alleged act was done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. The SC noted that the appellant was not shown to hold such a post, and even if treated as a public servant, the statutory precondition for sanction was absent. The fact that the appointing or removing authority derived power from regulations under a parliamentary enactment did not make Government sanction for removal necessary. Sanction was therefore not required and prosecution could proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>