<?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>2009 (6) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34098</link>
    <description>An application for consent to withdraw from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be considered on the Public Prosecutor&#039;s independent and bona fide application of mind, with the court exercising a supervisory role limited to checking relevance, good faith and absence of extraneous considerations. Where the Public Prosecutor is appointed by the Central Government, separate Government permission is not automatically a prerequisite for the request to be entertained. A magistrate who rejects the application on the mistaken assumption that such permission is invariably required applies the wrong legal test, and the matter may be remitted for fresh consideration on the correct footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34098</link>
      <description>An application for consent to withdraw from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be considered on the Public Prosecutor&#039;s independent and bona fide application of mind, with the court exercising a supervisory role limited to checking relevance, good faith and absence of extraneous considerations. Where the Public Prosecutor is appointed by the Central Government, separate Government permission is not automatically a prerequisite for the request to be entertained. A magistrate who rejects the application on the mistaken assumption that such permission is invariably required applies the wrong legal test, and the matter may be remitted for fresh consideration on the correct footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>