<?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>2000 (1) TMI 981 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173770</link>
    <description>At the stage of framing charge, the court must confine itself to a prima facie assessment of whether the prosecution material discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence, and it cannot weigh the evidence as if deciding guilt or innocence. Where the record, taken at face value, supports the offence alleged, a charge must be framed; disputed issues such as conspiracy, comparative price, role of the accused, genuineness of quotations, and participation of other members are matters for trial. The SC stated that the High Court exceeded the limited charge-stage inquiry by reappreciating material on merits, so the order quashing the charges was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 981 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173770</link>
      <description>At the stage of framing charge, the court must confine itself to a prima facie assessment of whether the prosecution material discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence, and it cannot weigh the evidence as if deciding guilt or innocence. Where the record, taken at face value, supports the offence alleged, a charge must be framed; disputed issues such as conspiracy, comparative price, role of the accused, genuineness of quotations, and participation of other members are matters for trial. The SC stated that the High Court exceeded the limited charge-stage inquiry by reappreciating material on merits, so the order quashing the charges was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>