<?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>1985 (2) TMI 317 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309695</link>
    <description>Investigation into a non-cognizable offence without a Magistrate&#039;s order under section 155(2) of the Code was held to be unlawful because the provision is mandatory. The Court stated that non-compliance with this requirement is not a curable defect and that, where a mandatory provision is breached, the question of prejudice to the accused does not arise. On that basis, the investigation was treated as vitiated and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2023 11:52:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 317 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309695</link>
      <description>Investigation into a non-cognizable offence without a Magistrate&#039;s order under section 155(2) of the Code was held to be unlawful because the provision is mandatory. The Court stated that non-compliance with this requirement is not a curable defect and that, where a mandatory provision is breached, the question of prejudice to the accused does not arise. On that basis, the investigation was treated as vitiated and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>