<?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>1964 (4) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168881</link>
    <description>The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was treated as a beneficial reforming statute capable of applying to pending criminal proceedings, and section 11 was read broadly to permit appellate and revisional courts to act under section 6 even where the trial conviction predated the Act&#039;s extension to the area. On that construction, the earlier conviction did not bar consideration of probationary relief at the later stage. Section 6(2) was also held to require the court to call for and consider a probation officer&#039;s report before deciding sentencing, making that step mandatory. The conviction remained undisturbed, but the sentencing order required fresh consideration under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:06:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168881</link>
      <description>The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was treated as a beneficial reforming statute capable of applying to pending criminal proceedings, and section 11 was read broadly to permit appellate and revisional courts to act under section 6 even where the trial conviction predated the Act&#039;s extension to the area. On that construction, the earlier conviction did not bar consideration of probationary relief at the later stage. Section 6(2) was also held to require the court to call for and consider a probation officer&#039;s report before deciding sentencing, making that step mandatory. The conviction remained undisturbed, but the sentencing order required fresh consideration under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>