<?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 (6) TMI 1671 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302601</link>
    <description>Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is to be used only in exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is disclosed, the allegations are absurd, a legal bar exists, or the proceeding is manifestly mala fide. On the materials described, allegations of illegal purchase, transport and export of iron ore with supporting documents were sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution. A second charge sheet did not bar the case because the two charge sheets contained distinct allegations concerning different aspects of the same transaction. Non-impleadment of a partnership firm also did not preclude prosecution of a partner, as a firm is not treated as a corporate body in the same manner as a company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2022 07:39:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=681328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1671 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302601</link>
      <description>Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is to be used only in exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is disclosed, the allegations are absurd, a legal bar exists, or the proceeding is manifestly mala fide. On the materials described, allegations of illegal purchase, transport and export of iron ore with supporting documents were sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution. A second charge sheet did not bar the case because the two charge sheets contained distinct allegations concerning different aspects of the same transaction. Non-impleadment of a partnership firm also did not preclude prosecution of a partner, as a firm is not treated as a corporate body in the same manner as a company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>