<?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>2022 (11) TMI 1501 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456620</link>
    <description>At the quashing and discharge stage, courts will not weigh evidence or test the accused&#039;s defence where prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case. Allegations relating to allotment of government discretionary quota plots, rapid file movement, approvals by public authorities, and subsequent joint venture arrangements were supported by witness statements and documents suggesting prior understanding and abuse of official position, so the proceedings were allowed to continue. The absence of demonstrable loss to the public authority did not by itself justify quashing. On discharge, the settled test that the charge must be groundless was not met because the materials, including statements under Section 164 CrPC, raised issues of conspiracy, role, intent, and legality that had to be examined at trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:55:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1501 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456620</link>
      <description>At the quashing and discharge stage, courts will not weigh evidence or test the accused&#039;s defence where prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case. Allegations relating to allotment of government discretionary quota plots, rapid file movement, approvals by public authorities, and subsequent joint venture arrangements were supported by witness statements and documents suggesting prior understanding and abuse of official position, so the proceedings were allowed to continue. The absence of demonstrable loss to the public authority did not by itself justify quashing. On discharge, the settled test that the charge must be groundless was not met because the materials, including statements under Section 164 CrPC, raised issues of conspiracy, role, intent, and legality that had to be examined at trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>