https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272904 The court set aside the lower court's order and allowed the revision case, determining that the correct procedure for prosecuting the petitioner should have been under Section 476 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 479A Cr.P.C. The ruling emphasized the need to adhere to specific procedural requirements based on the type of evidence presented and highlighted the necessity of a preliminary inquiry for cases involving affidavits. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2018 10:34:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272904 The court set aside the lower court's order and allowed the revision case, determining that the correct procedure for prosecuting the petitioner should have been under Section 476 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 479A Cr.P.C. The ruling emphasized the need to adhere to specific procedural requirements based on the type of evidence presented and highlighted the necessity of a preliminary inquiry for cases involving affidavits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272904