<?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>2024 (7) TMI 1669 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463044</link>
    <description>At discharge under Section 227 CrPC, the court must confine itself to the prosecution record and cannot rely on defence material or conduct a roving inquiry. It may only sift the prosecution documents to see whether they disclose a prima facie case; if they do not, discharge must follow. The Supreme Court held that the record here disclosed no direct or inferable material showing an agreement or meeting of minds for criminal conspiracy or common intention, and the suspicion against the appellant rested on conjecture. No prima facie case being made out, the charge could not be sustained and discharge ought to have been allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1669 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463044</link>
      <description>At discharge under Section 227 CrPC, the court must confine itself to the prosecution record and cannot rely on defence material or conduct a roving inquiry. It may only sift the prosecution documents to see whether they disclose a prima facie case; if they do not, discharge must follow. The Supreme Court held that the record here disclosed no direct or inferable material showing an agreement or meeting of minds for criminal conspiracy or common intention, and the suspicion against the appellant rested on conjecture. No prima facie case being made out, the charge could not be sustained and discharge ought to have been allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>