<?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>2025 (7) TMI 1526 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775458</link>
    <description>Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was treated as a mandatory pre-cognizance safeguard requiring notice and an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. The provision also permits dispensing with examination of the complainant where the complaint is in writing by a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties. Although the complaint was treated as one by a Government agency and verification of the complainant was dispensed with, cognizance was taken without hearing the accused. That omission was held contrary to the statutory mandate, so the cognizance order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:39:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1526 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775458</link>
      <description>Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was treated as a mandatory pre-cognizance safeguard requiring notice and an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. The provision also permits dispensing with examination of the complainant where the complaint is in writing by a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties. Although the complaint was treated as one by a Government agency and verification of the complainant was dispensed with, cognizance was taken without hearing the accused. That omission was held contrary to the statutory mandate, so the cognizance order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>