<?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>2013 (2) TMI 929 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309841</link>
    <description>At the quashing stage, the court examines only whether the charge-sheets and supporting material disclose a cognizable offence and a prima facie case, not the ultimate truth or probability of the evidence. The allegations of manipulation in contracts, tendering, pricing and decision-making were treated as sufficient to proceed on charges of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct. Persons originally named in the FIR could be examined as witnesses without prior pardon where they were not accomplices in the legal sense. The objection based on absence of prior approval under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act was rejected, and the investigation and prosecution were not treated as invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 929 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309841</link>
      <description>At the quashing stage, the court examines only whether the charge-sheets and supporting material disclose a cognizable offence and a prima facie case, not the ultimate truth or probability of the evidence. The allegations of manipulation in contracts, tendering, pricing and decision-making were treated as sufficient to proceed on charges of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct. Persons originally named in the FIR could be examined as witnesses without prior pardon where they were not accomplices in the legal sense. The objection based on absence of prior approval under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act was rejected, and the investigation and prosecution were not treated as invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>