<?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>2012 (2) TMI 222 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210699</link>
    <description>At the pre-charge stage, discharge cannot be sustained where the record shows strong suspicion or a prima facie basis to proceed; the court is not required to assess whether conviction is certain. The sanction was upheld because it reflected due application of mind on the material before the sanctioning authority, and the non-production of the retracted statement before that authority did not vitiate it. Examination of the sanctioning authority was not required at this stage, and a presumption of regularity applied to official acts. Absence of independent witnesses did not, by itself, justify discharge where other prosecution material remained for trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 222 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210699</link>
      <description>At the pre-charge stage, discharge cannot be sustained where the record shows strong suspicion or a prima facie basis to proceed; the court is not required to assess whether conviction is certain. The sanction was upheld because it reflected due application of mind on the material before the sanctioning authority, and the non-production of the retracted statement before that authority did not vitiate it. Examination of the sanctioning authority was not required at this stage, and a presumption of regularity applied to official acts. Absence of independent witnesses did not, by itself, justify discharge where other prosecution material remained for trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>