<?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>1994 (7) TMI 376 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303877</link>
    <description>A committal Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence may summon additional persons not sent up in the police report, even in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, if the material on record shows prima facie involvement. The power flows from cognizance and existing record, not from a detailed trial or oral evidence. At the summoning stage, the Court need only see whether the allegations are inherently improbable or unsupported. On the facts described, summoning of petitioners 2 to 4 was upheld because the record attributed their presence and participation in the alleged unlawful assembly, while the first petitioner&#039;s summoning was set aside for lack of material showing his presence or membership.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2022 17:53:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 376 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303877</link>
      <description>A committal Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence may summon additional persons not sent up in the police report, even in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, if the material on record shows prima facie involvement. The power flows from cognizance and existing record, not from a detailed trial or oral evidence. At the summoning stage, the Court need only see whether the allegations are inherently improbable or unsupported. On the facts described, summoning of petitioners 2 to 4 was upheld because the record attributed their presence and participation in the alleged unlawful assembly, while the first petitioner&#039;s summoning was set aside for lack of material showing his presence or membership.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>