<?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>1985 (10) TMI 276 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171592</link>
    <description>A special statutory confiscation scheme under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act operated independently of criminal prosecution for the same forest offence. The amended provisions empowered the authorised officer to order confiscation of seized timber or forest produce on satisfaction that a forest offence had been committed, while limiting the Magistrate&#039;s confiscatory power where confiscation had already been ordered under Section 44. Section 58A confirmed that confiscation does not exclude other penalties, and the general powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure yielded to this special regime. Accordingly, confiscation proceedings could continue despite pendency of the criminal case, and the High Court was not justified in staying the confiscation inquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:28:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 276 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171592</link>
      <description>A special statutory confiscation scheme under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act operated independently of criminal prosecution for the same forest offence. The amended provisions empowered the authorised officer to order confiscation of seized timber or forest produce on satisfaction that a forest offence had been committed, while limiting the Magistrate&#039;s confiscatory power where confiscation had already been ordered under Section 44. Section 58A confirmed that confiscation does not exclude other penalties, and the general powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure yielded to this special regime. Accordingly, confiscation proceedings could continue despite pendency of the criminal case, and the High Court was not justified in staying the confiscation inquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>