<?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>2005 (12) TMI 602 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304888</link>
    <description>Sanction under Section 197 CrPC was held unnecessary because the alleged abuses, assault, and removal of the complainant had no reasonable nexus with official duty; conduct of that kind cannot be treated as part of public functions. The Magistrate&#039;s process was also upheld because cognizance is taken when judicial mind is applied to the complaint for proceedings under Sections 200 and 204 CrPC, and recording sworn statements after perusing the complaint showed cognizance had already been taken. The absence of an express recital of cognizance caused no illegality, and no prejudice was shown. The issuing of process was therefore left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 17:51:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 602 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304888</link>
      <description>Sanction under Section 197 CrPC was held unnecessary because the alleged abuses, assault, and removal of the complainant had no reasonable nexus with official duty; conduct of that kind cannot be treated as part of public functions. The Magistrate&#039;s process was also upheld because cognizance is taken when judicial mind is applied to the complaint for proceedings under Sections 200 and 204 CrPC, and recording sworn statements after perusing the complaint showed cognizance had already been taken. The absence of an express recital of cognizance caused no illegality, and no prejudice was shown. The issuing of process was therefore left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>