<?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>1996 (2) TMI 556 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177154</link>
    <description>Where a local statute contemplates trial by a special Municipal Magistrate but no such forum has been constituted, the ordinary criminal court&#039;s jurisdiction is not excluded. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was read to mean that offences under the Act are tried by Municipal Magistrates when established under Section 469, while the Code continues to apply to such proceedings. In the absence of a notified Municipal Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate, as a Magistrate of the first class, can take cognizance and try the offence. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:13:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 556 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177154</link>
      <description>Where a local statute contemplates trial by a special Municipal Magistrate but no such forum has been constituted, the ordinary criminal court&#039;s jurisdiction is not excluded. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was read to mean that offences under the Act are tried by Municipal Magistrates when established under Section 469, while the Code continues to apply to such proceedings. In the absence of a notified Municipal Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate, as a Magistrate of the first class, can take cognizance and try the offence. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>