<?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>2013 (8) TMI 276 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235981</link>
    <description>After the Essential Commodities Act was amended to make the offence cognizable, police could investigate and conduct search and seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if they were not notified as Inspectors under the control orders. An irregular or illegal search did not by itself vitiate the seizure, investigation or prosecution unless the accused showed prejudice, so quashing at the threshold was unwarranted. The alleged movement of fertilizer from Bihar to Nepal did not, on the stated facts, attract the Customs Act. The petitions challenging cognizance and refusal to discharge were rejected, and the trials were directed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 276 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235981</link>
      <description>After the Essential Commodities Act was amended to make the offence cognizable, police could investigate and conduct search and seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if they were not notified as Inspectors under the control orders. An irregular or illegal search did not by itself vitiate the seizure, investigation or prosecution unless the accused showed prejudice, so quashing at the threshold was unwarranted. The alleged movement of fertilizer from Bihar to Nepal did not, on the stated facts, attract the Customs Act. The petitions challenging cognizance and refusal to discharge were rejected, and the trials were directed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>