<?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 (11) TMI 269 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252952</link>
    <description>In a complaint alleging offences under the Income-tax Act and the IPC, discharge under Section 245 CrPC cannot be decided before completion of pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC. The accused&#039;s earlier request was therefore premature, because the court must first examine the complainant and witnesses and consider the materials before deciding whether to frame charge or discharge the accused. However, the prior dismissal did not bar reconsideration once Section 244 evidence was completed. The matter was directed to proceed to that stage expeditiously, and discharge was to be considered afresh in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the earlier order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 269 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252952</link>
      <description>In a complaint alleging offences under the Income-tax Act and the IPC, discharge under Section 245 CrPC cannot be decided before completion of pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC. The accused&#039;s earlier request was therefore premature, because the court must first examine the complainant and witnesses and consider the materials before deciding whether to frame charge or discharge the accused. However, the prior dismissal did not bar reconsideration once Section 244 evidence was completed. The matter was directed to proceed to that stage expeditiously, and discharge was to be considered afresh in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the earlier order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>