<?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>1993 (6) TMI 251 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311448</link>
    <description>Prosecution for dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust was analysed on limitation and continuity under the Criminal Procedure Code. The text states that the alleged refusal to return articles and ornaments, together with an unequivocal denial of the complainant&#039;s right, marked the point when the offences were complete in March 1988. It further explains that these offences are not continuing offences once possession changes into dishonest withholding or use; later retention or repeated demands do not restart limitation unless a fresh offence is pleaded. On that reasoning, the complaint was time-barred and the proceeding was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2023 15:57:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (6) TMI 251 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311448</link>
      <description>Prosecution for dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust was analysed on limitation and continuity under the Criminal Procedure Code. The text states that the alleged refusal to return articles and ornaments, together with an unequivocal denial of the complainant&#039;s right, marked the point when the offences were complete in March 1988. It further explains that these offences are not continuing offences once possession changes into dishonest withholding or use; later retention or repeated demands do not restart limitation unless a fresh offence is pleaded. On that reasoning, the complaint was time-barred and the proceeding was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>