https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307379 At the discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC, the Court held that witness statements showing involvement in the financial establishment were sufficient to raise a presumption of an offence, and disputed questions such as whether the accused was a sleeping or active partner could not be decided then. The accused was therefore not entitled to discharge. The Court also held that any defect in compliance with Section 305 CrPC for corporate representation did not justify quashment, as a juristic person can be prosecuted and must appoint its own representative. The Section 219 objection was rejected because the conspiracy charge required a common trial under Section 223 CrPC. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307379 At the discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC, the Court held that witness statements showing involvement in the financial establishment were sufficient to raise a presumption of an offence, and disputed questions such as whether the accused was a sleeping or active partner could not be decided then. The accused was therefore not entitled to discharge. The Court also held that any defect in compliance with Section 305 CrPC for corporate representation did not justify quashment, as a juristic person can be prosecuted and must appoint its own representative. The Section 219 objection was rejected because the conspiracy charge required a common trial under Section 223 CrPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307379