<?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>2014 (1) TMI 553 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242332</link>
    <description>Delay in filing and refiling the special leave petitions was condoned because the delay was explained by a change in the Government&#039;s decision after fresh legal opinion, and the connected matters arose from the same impugned order. At the discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC, the court must confine itself to whether the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case and cannot conduct a mini trial or weigh evidence. On that standard, the accused could not be discharged in the disproportionate-assets prosecution merely because some properties stood in the names of persons with independent tax assessments or because the investigation was alleged to be defective. The discharge orders were set aside and the trial was directed to proceed from charge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 553 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242332</link>
      <description>Delay in filing and refiling the special leave petitions was condoned because the delay was explained by a change in the Government&#039;s decision after fresh legal opinion, and the connected matters arose from the same impugned order. At the discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC, the court must confine itself to whether the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case and cannot conduct a mini trial or weigh evidence. On that standard, the accused could not be discharged in the disproportionate-assets prosecution merely because some properties stood in the names of persons with independent tax assessments or because the investigation was alleged to be defective. The discharge orders were set aside and the trial was directed to proceed from charge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>