https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200335 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or to act as a second revisional court after a charge has been framed and affirmed in revision. The statutory distinction between discharge after prosecution evidence and framing of charge means that, where the complaint as a whole discloses the ingredients of the offence and the material supports a prima facie view, the proceedings should not be quashed merely because a defence version appears plausible or the prosecution case may seem weak on a full merits appraisal. The charge was therefore restored and the prosecution allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:54:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200335 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or to act as a second revisional court after a charge has been framed and affirmed in revision. The statutory distinction between discharge after prosecution evidence and framing of charge means that, where the complaint as a whole discloses the ingredients of the offence and the material supports a prima facie view, the proceedings should not be quashed merely because a defence version appears plausible or the prosecution case may seem weak on a full merits appraisal. The charge was therefore restored and the prosecution allowed to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200335