<?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>2012 (6) TMI 934 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460466</link>
    <description>Non-recording of an accused&#039;s statement under Section 313 CrPC in a summons case does not automatically vitiate the proceedings. The provision is intended to give the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, but the proviso allows personal examination to be dispensed with where attendance has been dispensed with. A conviction should not be disturbed unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown. Where the accused avoided the proceedings and remained absent despite opportunities, he could not rely on the omission to challenge the conviction, and the appellate court was said to have erred in treating the defect as fatal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:24:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=792277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 934 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460466</link>
      <description>Non-recording of an accused&#039;s statement under Section 313 CrPC in a summons case does not automatically vitiate the proceedings. The provision is intended to give the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, but the proviso allows personal examination to be dispensed with where attendance has been dispensed with. A conviction should not be disturbed unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown. Where the accused avoided the proceedings and remained absent despite opportunities, he could not rely on the omission to challenge the conviction, and the appellate court was said to have erred in treating the defect as fatal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>