<?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 (4) TMI 646 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310409</link>
    <description>Interference at the threshold in prosecutions under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was declined because whether the ingredients of the offences were made out could be determined only on evidence. The Court therefore did not entertain the challenge at that stage. On the question of appearance, it noted that an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be made before the trial court, which should consider dispensing with the accused&#039;s personal attendance on appropriate terms and conditions. The threshold challenge failed, but the request for dispensation of personal attendance was left open before the trial court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:15:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 646 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310409</link>
      <description>Interference at the threshold in prosecutions under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was declined because whether the ingredients of the offences were made out could be determined only on evidence. The Court therefore did not entertain the challenge at that stage. On the question of appearance, it noted that an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be made before the trial court, which should consider dispensing with the accused&#039;s personal attendance on appropriate terms and conditions. The threshold challenge failed, but the request for dispensation of personal attendance was left open before the trial court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>