<?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>2012 (1) TMI 338 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198024</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be amended before cognizance is taken where the amendment is sought at the pre-cognizance stage and does not prejudice the accused. The absence of an express procedural provision was not treated as decisive because the amendment was intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The accused remained free to raise all defences at the final hearing, and no ground was found to quash the proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2018 18:29:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 338 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198024</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be amended before cognizance is taken where the amendment is sought at the pre-cognizance stage and does not prejudice the accused. The absence of an express procedural provision was not treated as decisive because the amendment was intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The accused remained free to raise all defences at the final hearing, and no ground was found to quash the proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>