<?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>2001 (10) TMI 1150 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179415</link>
    <description>At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate must see whether the complaint and sworn statements disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. For appellants 1 to 6 and 8, there was no prima facie entrustment of property, dishonest misappropriation, or material showing conspiracy, so process under Sections 406 and 120B IPC could not stand and was set aside. For appellant 7, the material did not support breach of trust or conspiracy, but it did disclose a prima facie allegation of dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction, sufficient to sustain process for cheating under Section 420 IPC. The Court treated the dispute as contractual in nature where criminal process was unsupported except for cheating against appellant 7.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2016 12:33:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1150 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179415</link>
      <description>At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate must see whether the complaint and sworn statements disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. For appellants 1 to 6 and 8, there was no prima facie entrustment of property, dishonest misappropriation, or material showing conspiracy, so process under Sections 406 and 120B IPC could not stand and was set aside. For appellant 7, the material did not support breach of trust or conspiracy, but it did disclose a prima facie allegation of dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction, sufficient to sustain process for cheating under Section 420 IPC. The Court treated the dispute as contractual in nature where criminal process was unsupported except for cheating against appellant 7.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>