<?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>2014 (8) TMI 1213 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296356</link>
    <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate is not required to hold a separate inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC in every case before issuing process, even where the accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction. Where the complaint is supported by the cheque, dishonour memo, statutory notice, proof of service, and the complainant&#039;s affidavit, those materials may be sufficient for cognizance and pre-summoning process. The inquiry under Section 202(1) is limited to determining whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed, and the earlier contrary view was treated as no longer good law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=649815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1213 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296356</link>
      <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate is not required to hold a separate inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC in every case before issuing process, even where the accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction. Where the complaint is supported by the cheque, dishonour memo, statutory notice, proof of service, and the complainant&#039;s affidavit, those materials may be sufficient for cognizance and pre-summoning process. The inquiry under Section 202(1) is limited to determining whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed, and the earlier contrary view was treated as no longer good law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>