<?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>1999 (3) TMI 674 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311165</link>
    <description>An order issuing process against an accused is not a purely interlocutory order and therefore remains open to revision under Section 397 CrPC because it affects substantial rights. At the Section 204 stage, after cognizance on a police report, the Magistrate need only consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and whether any legal bar, such as sanction or limitation, exists. Detailed appreciation of evidence or elaborate reasons is not required at that stage, unlike dismissal of a complaint under Section 203. The revisional challenge was accordingly found maintainable and the order issuing process was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:09:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 674 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311165</link>
      <description>An order issuing process against an accused is not a purely interlocutory order and therefore remains open to revision under Section 397 CrPC because it affects substantial rights. At the Section 204 stage, after cognizance on a police report, the Magistrate need only consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and whether any legal bar, such as sanction or limitation, exists. Detailed appreciation of evidence or elaborate reasons is not required at that stage, unlike dismissal of a complaint under Section 203. The revisional challenge was accordingly found maintainable and the order issuing process was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>