<?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>2025 (2) TMI 1218 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462942</link>
    <description>Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was a condition precedent to cognizance where the alleged acts of a public servant had a reasonable connection with official duty. The Court applied the test whether the conduct was so linked to the discharge of duty that it could be said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in that capacity, and found the impugned affidavit and related communications traceable to the appellant&#039;s official role. A deemed sanction could not be inferred because the statute created no such fiction, and the time-limit argument could not displace the requirement of previous sanction. Cognizance without sanction was therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:03:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1218 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462942</link>
      <description>Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was a condition precedent to cognizance where the alleged acts of a public servant had a reasonable connection with official duty. The Court applied the test whether the conduct was so linked to the discharge of duty that it could be said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in that capacity, and found the impugned affidavit and related communications traceable to the appellant&#039;s official role. A deemed sanction could not be inferred because the statute created no such fiction, and the time-limit argument could not displace the requirement of previous sanction. Cognizance without sanction was therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>