<?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>2004 (5) TMI 573 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174000</link>
    <description>Section 160 CrPC applies only to witnesses or persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case, so it cannot be used to compel an accused person&#039;s attendance at a police station for questioning. The provision also does not justify a general rule confining women to questioning at their residences or only by women police officers. The revisional court likewise exceeded its limited role by recording premature findings on confession, recovery, compensation, and departmental action before investigation and trial were completed; such matters were reserved for trial and further investigation. The impugned revision order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 573 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174000</link>
      <description>Section 160 CrPC applies only to witnesses or persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case, so it cannot be used to compel an accused person&#039;s attendance at a police station for questioning. The provision also does not justify a general rule confining women to questioning at their residences or only by women police officers. The revisional court likewise exceeded its limited role by recording premature findings on confession, recovery, compensation, and departmental action before investigation and trial were completed; such matters were reserved for trial and further investigation. The impugned revision order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>