<?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>2017 (10) TMI 143 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348988</link>
    <description>At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the Court examines only whether the prosecution material raises a ground for presuming the commission of an offence, not whether the defence explanation is ultimately true. On the record, the alleged official order was not duly reflected in proceedings, the transaction was linked to the accused&#039;s chamber, and the complaint, recovery mahazar, voice material and witness statements supported a prima facie case of demand, receipt and conspiracy involving illegal gratification. The accused&#039;s claim that the notes were merely pushed away raised factual disputes fit for trial. The revisional challenge to refusal of discharge therefore failed, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:43:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 143 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348988</link>
      <description>At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the Court examines only whether the prosecution material raises a ground for presuming the commission of an offence, not whether the defence explanation is ultimately true. On the record, the alleged official order was not duly reflected in proceedings, the transaction was linked to the accused&#039;s chamber, and the complaint, recovery mahazar, voice material and witness statements supported a prima facie case of demand, receipt and conspiracy involving illegal gratification. The accused&#039;s claim that the notes were merely pushed away raised factual disputes fit for trial. The revisional challenge to refusal of discharge therefore failed, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>