<?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>1995 (8) TMI 170 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85169</link>
    <description>A Special Court created by notification can try only the offences expressly covered by that notification, so it lacked jurisdiction over Indian Penal Code offences not included in the scheduled enactments. The order taking cognizance was defective because it did not any visible application of judicial mind to the complaint or specify the offence for which process was issued. For the Indian Penal Code allegations, the complainant had to be examined under Section 200 CrPC, since his authority extended only to the Imports and Exports Act offence. The proceedings were therefore unsustainable and the accused were discharged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:18:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 170 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85169</link>
      <description>A Special Court created by notification can try only the offences expressly covered by that notification, so it lacked jurisdiction over Indian Penal Code offences not included in the scheduled enactments. The order taking cognizance was defective because it did not any visible application of judicial mind to the complaint or specify the offence for which process was issued. For the Indian Penal Code allegations, the complainant had to be examined under Section 200 CrPC, since his authority extended only to the Imports and Exports Act offence. The proceedings were therefore unsustainable and the accused were discharged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>