<?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>2018 (3) TMI 1936 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297993</link>
    <description>FIR registration is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence, but a limited preliminary inquiry may be permissible in corruption matters to determine whether such offence is disclosed. A two- to three-day delay in lodging the FIR was not treated as inordinate or deliberate, given the allegations of large-scale corruption and the secrecy required in trap-related action. Although the pre-FIR search and arrest were irregular, the Court noted that the material collected, the later charge-sheet, and prima facie evidence disclosed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied provisions. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, and legitimate prosecution should not be stifled for procedural lapses at the preliminary stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2021 20:56:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1936 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297993</link>
      <description>FIR registration is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence, but a limited preliminary inquiry may be permissible in corruption matters to determine whether such offence is disclosed. A two- to three-day delay in lodging the FIR was not treated as inordinate or deliberate, given the allegations of large-scale corruption and the secrecy required in trap-related action. Although the pre-FIR search and arrest were irregular, the Court noted that the material collected, the later charge-sheet, and prima facie evidence disclosed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied provisions. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, and legitimate prosecution should not be stifled for procedural lapses at the preliminary stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>