<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1231 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172717</link>
    <description>Criminal contempt could not be sustained against the Special Public Prosecutor because the sting material did not conclusively prove the alleged misconduct and the broader basis of liability was not fairly put to him; his conviction was set aside. The advocate&#039;s repeated private meetings with a prosecution witness, discussion of the pending trial, and attempt to influence alignment with the defence were held to amount to suborning a witness and interference with the due course of justice, so the contempt conviction was upheld. The sentence was found too lenient, but any further enhancement required prior notice. A blanket prohibition on appearance before the High Court and subordinate courts could not stand without notice, though limited restraint in appropriate cases was recognised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1231 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172717</link>
      <description>Criminal contempt could not be sustained against the Special Public Prosecutor because the sting material did not conclusively prove the alleged misconduct and the broader basis of liability was not fairly put to him; his conviction was set aside. The advocate&#039;s repeated private meetings with a prosecution witness, discussion of the pending trial, and attempt to influence alignment with the defence were held to amount to suborning a witness and interference with the due course of justice, so the contempt conviction was upheld. The sentence was found too lenient, but any further enhancement required prior notice. A blanket prohibition on appearance before the High Court and subordinate courts could not stand without notice, though limited restraint in appropriate cases was recognised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>