<?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>2007 (3) TMI 725 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168290</link>
    <description>Death of the original complainant did not automatically abate the criminal complaint. Applying the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prior authority on continuation of prosecution by persons other than the complainant, the Court held that legal heirs could seek permission to continue the complaint, and permission already granted by the trial court had attained finality. The accused&#039;s belated challenge to discharge under Section 239 CrPC failed because the proceedings had advanced and the courts below had found a prima facie case for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The refusal to discharge was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 725 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168290</link>
      <description>Death of the original complainant did not automatically abate the criminal complaint. Applying the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prior authority on continuation of prosecution by persons other than the complainant, the Court held that legal heirs could seek permission to continue the complaint, and permission already granted by the trial court had attained finality. The accused&#039;s belated challenge to discharge under Section 239 CrPC failed because the proceedings had advanced and the courts below had found a prima facie case for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The refusal to discharge was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>