<?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>1978 (11) TMI 151 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165208</link>
    <description>At the stage of framing charge under section 227 CrPC, the Judge must examine the record and documents to see whether they disclose sufficient ground for proceeding or only a suspicion. The court may sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists; if two views are equally possible, discharge is proper. Applying that standard, the Court held that the alleged concealment regarding the nature of the land was not established, the government records showed it to be khasmahal land, and the materials did not show any meeting of minds or criminal conspiracy. The discharge was therefore upheld and the accused were not sent to trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 151 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165208</link>
      <description>At the stage of framing charge under section 227 CrPC, the Judge must examine the record and documents to see whether they disclose sufficient ground for proceeding or only a suspicion. The court may sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists; if two views are equally possible, discharge is proper. Applying that standard, the Court held that the alleged concealment regarding the nature of the land was not established, the government records showed it to be khasmahal land, and the materials did not show any meeting of minds or criminal conspiracy. The discharge was therefore upheld and the accused were not sent to trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>