<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1412 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293822</link>
    <description>Section 216 CrPC empowers a court to alter or add a charge at any time before judgment where material on record discloses a prima facie nexus with the ingredients of the proposed offence. The court need not assess the probative value of the evidence at that stage; the controlling safeguard is the avoidance of prejudice to the accused, with witness recall addressed under Section 217 where necessary. On the facts discussed, the additional charge-sheet, witness statements and surrounding material were said to disclose a prima facie basis for entrustment and cheating, and the High Court&#039;s direction to frame additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was treated as justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:23:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1412 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293822</link>
      <description>Section 216 CrPC empowers a court to alter or add a charge at any time before judgment where material on record discloses a prima facie nexus with the ingredients of the proposed offence. The court need not assess the probative value of the evidence at that stage; the controlling safeguard is the avoidance of prejudice to the accused, with witness recall addressed under Section 217 where necessary. On the facts discussed, the additional charge-sheet, witness statements and surrounding material were said to disclose a prima facie basis for entrustment and cheating, and the High Court&#039;s direction to frame additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was treated as justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>