<?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>1989 (11) TMI 35 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23651</link>
    <description>A pre-charge request for discharge or quashing was treated as premature where no prosecution witness had been examined. The High Court stated that objections to criminal liability, including defences relating to a petitioner&#039;s role in the firm and any jurisdictional challenge, should be raised before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge. It further noted that any question of jurisdiction should be considered first by the trial court, and if required, the matter could be transferred to the proper court. The proceeding was therefore not interfered with at that stage, and the accused were left to pursue their objections in the trial court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:42:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (11) TMI 35 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23651</link>
      <description>A pre-charge request for discharge or quashing was treated as premature where no prosecution witness had been examined. The High Court stated that objections to criminal liability, including defences relating to a petitioner&#039;s role in the firm and any jurisdictional challenge, should be raised before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge. It further noted that any question of jurisdiction should be considered first by the trial court, and if required, the matter could be transferred to the proper court. The proceeding was therefore not interfered with at that stage, and the accused were left to pursue their objections in the trial court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>