Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Petition for discharge u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed in offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 relating to improperly imported gold bars. At charge framing stage, court to prima facie consider sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused, not appreciate evidence for conviction. While considering discharge, court not to deeply evaluate probative value but form presumptive opinion on factual ingredients constituting alleged offence without roving inquiry or weighing evidence as in trial. Gold seized from pillion rider's possession, petitioner's involvement matter for trial. Sanction order challenged on ground of not considering evidence nature, role and mens rea, but petitioner neither specified facts not considered nor showed apparent error. No evidence produced to enable Magistrate find charge groundless. Dismissal of discharge petition cannot be faulted, revision devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.
Petition for discharge u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed in offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 relating to improperly imported gold bars. At charge framing stage, court to prima facie consider sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused, not appreciate evidence for conviction. While considering discharge, court not to deeply evaluate probative value but form presumptive opinion on factual ingredients constituting alleged offence without roving inquiry or weighing evidence as in trial. Gold seized from pillion rider's possession, petitioner's involvement matter for trial. Sanction order challenged on ground of not considering evidence nature, role and mens rea, but petitioner neither specified facts not considered nor showed apparent error. No evidence produced to enable Magistrate find charge groundless. Dismissal of discharge petition cannot be faulted, revision devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
