<?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>2019 (3) TMI 544 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376523</link>
    <description>Where an accused in a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint resides beyond the Magistrate&#039;s territorial jurisdiction, the amended section 202 CrPC requires a mandatory pre-summoning inquiry before process is issued. The summary procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act and affidavit evidence under sections 145 and 146 do not displace this safeguard, which also tests whether sufficient material exists to justify process. The High Court further noted that the existence of a revision remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction where direct interference is otherwise warranted. On that basis, the process orders and connected revisional orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for compliance with section 202.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 544 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376523</link>
      <description>Where an accused in a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint resides beyond the Magistrate&#039;s territorial jurisdiction, the amended section 202 CrPC requires a mandatory pre-summoning inquiry before process is issued. The summary procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act and affidavit evidence under sections 145 and 146 do not displace this safeguard, which also tests whether sufficient material exists to justify process. The High Court further noted that the existence of a revision remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction where direct interference is otherwise warranted. On that basis, the process orders and connected revisional orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for compliance with section 202.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>