Habeas corpus challenge to arrest safeguards remains maintainable, but substantial compliance with reasons-to-believe requirement defeats the petition...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3081 to 3100 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 217(3) required the board to furnish full explanations only for genuine reservations, qualifications or adverse remarks in the auditor's report, so a generic comment that internal audit needed strengthening did not attract penal liability under Section 217(5). The complaint therefore disclosed no prima facie offence. Prosecution was also time-barred because there was no prior sanction requirement, no valid basis to exclude time under Section 470(3) CrPC, and no condonation sought. The Magistrate's cognizance and summons were unsustainable because the record showed no application of mind before issuing process.
Section 217(3) required the board to furnish full explanations only for genuine reservations, qualifications or adverse remarks in the auditor's report, so a generic comment that internal audit needed strengthening did not attract penal liability under Section 217(5). The complaint therefore disclosed no prima facie offence. Prosecution was also time-barred because there was no prior sanction requirement, no valid basis to exclude time under Section 470(3) CrPC, and no condonation sought. The Magistrate's cognizance and summons were unsustainable because the record showed no application of mind before issuing process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.