<?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>2006 (7) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174522</link>
    <description>The statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure permits appointment of Executive Magistrates in metropolitan areas and preserves a special power to confer Executive Magistrate functions on a Commissioner of Police. Read together, these provisions support a further appointment as Additional District Magistrate with the powers of a District Magistrate where the governing law so requires. A restrictive interpretation that excludes the Commissioner of Police from this channel of appointment is rejected as inconsistent with the legislative object of effectively enforcing the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The notification is therefore treated as valid in substance for conferring the required magisterial powers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174522</link>
      <description>The statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure permits appointment of Executive Magistrates in metropolitan areas and preserves a special power to confer Executive Magistrate functions on a Commissioner of Police. Read together, these provisions support a further appointment as Additional District Magistrate with the powers of a District Magistrate where the governing law so requires. A restrictive interpretation that excludes the Commissioner of Police from this channel of appointment is rejected as inconsistent with the legislative object of effectively enforcing the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The notification is therefore treated as valid in substance for conferring the required magisterial powers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>