https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311905 An investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not liable to be quashed merely because the Superintendent of Police's authorisation under Section 17 is challenged as mechanical, where the order identifies the accused, crime number and offence and reflects conscious application of mind. The Court further reiterated that a defect or illegality in investigation does not, by itself, vitiate cognizance or trial unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown. The authorisation was upheld as valid, the quashing of the investigation and proceedings was set aside, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed to trial. en-us Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 May 2025 14:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311905 An investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not liable to be quashed merely because the Superintendent of Police's authorisation under Section 17 is challenged as mechanical, where the order identifies the accused, crime number and offence and reflects conscious application of mind. The Court further reiterated that a defect or illegality in investigation does not, by itself, vitiate cognizance or trial unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown. The authorisation was upheld as valid, the quashing of the investigation and proceedings was set aside, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed to trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311905