<?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>1976 (4) TMI 213 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168737</link>
    <description>At the stage of inquiry under Section 202 and issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate must confine consideration to the complaint and the evidence supporting it to determine whether a prima facie case exists. Materials produced by the accused are not within the permissible field of inquiry at that stage. Revisional review is similarly limited and cannot be used to reappreciate the merits or substitute the High Court&#039;s view for the Magistrate&#039;s discretion. Interference is justified only where no offence is disclosed, the allegations are inherently improbable, the discretion is arbitrary or based on irrelevant material, or there is a fundamental legal defect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 213 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168737</link>
      <description>At the stage of inquiry under Section 202 and issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate must confine consideration to the complaint and the evidence supporting it to determine whether a prima facie case exists. Materials produced by the accused are not within the permissible field of inquiry at that stage. Revisional review is similarly limited and cannot be used to reappreciate the merits or substitute the High Court&#039;s view for the Magistrate&#039;s discretion. Interference is justified only where no offence is disclosed, the allegations are inherently improbable, the discretion is arbitrary or based on irrelevant material, or there is a fundamental legal defect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>