<?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>2003 (10) TMI 699 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311577</link>
    <description>After evidence is recorded under Section 244 CrPC, a Magistrate acting under Section 245 must assess whether the materials disclose a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction, rather than mechanically proceeding on the mere existence of admissible evidence. The scrutiny is broader than the preliminary stage under Sections 203 and 204 and requires application of mind to probative value and the broad probabilities of the case, without weighing evidence in fine detail. Applying that standard, the complaint&#039;s delay, inherent improbabilities in the complainant&#039;s version, and unreliable supporting testimony justified discharge under Section 245.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2024 18:56:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 699 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311577</link>
      <description>After evidence is recorded under Section 244 CrPC, a Magistrate acting under Section 245 must assess whether the materials disclose a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction, rather than mechanically proceeding on the mere existence of admissible evidence. The scrutiny is broader than the preliminary stage under Sections 203 and 204 and requires application of mind to probative value and the broad probabilities of the case, without weighing evidence in fine detail. Applying that standard, the complaint&#039;s delay, inherent improbabilities in the complainant&#039;s version, and unreliable supporting testimony justified discharge under Section 245.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>