<?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>2007 (10) TMI 554 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159358</link>
    <description>Conviction for possession of opium was upheld where prosecution evidence, recovery of the contraband, and compliance with procedural safeguards established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also held that imprisonment in default of payment of fine may be imposed under a special statute even if not expressly stated, because that power is implicit in the general criminal law scheme. However, the default term is not a substantive sentence and must be proportionate to the offence and offender circumstances; on that basis, the three-year default sentence was found excessive and reduced to six months while the conviction, substantive sentence, and fine were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2019 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 554 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159358</link>
      <description>Conviction for possession of opium was upheld where prosecution evidence, recovery of the contraband, and compliance with procedural safeguards established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also held that imprisonment in default of payment of fine may be imposed under a special statute even if not expressly stated, because that power is implicit in the general criminal law scheme. However, the default term is not a substantive sentence and must be proportionate to the offence and offender circumstances; on that basis, the three-year default sentence was found excessive and reduced to six months while the conviction, substantive sentence, and fine were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>