<?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>1951 (3) TMI 30 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180451</link>
    <description>Transfer orders identifying charge-sheet numbers were treated as sufficiently specific, and any defect in transfer was a procedural irregularity rather than want of jurisdiction; finality after appeal also could not be reopened in collateral proceedings. In capital cases, the right to be defended by a pleader had to be read liberally, but non-assignment of counsel did not automatically vitiate the trial unless it resulted in denial of a fair trial; on the facts, no such denial was shown. The mode of executing a death sentence by hanging, and the related requirement of assent or approval, were upheld as procedural matters covered by the amended regulation. The convictions and sentences remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (3) TMI 30 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180451</link>
      <description>Transfer orders identifying charge-sheet numbers were treated as sufficiently specific, and any defect in transfer was a procedural irregularity rather than want of jurisdiction; finality after appeal also could not be reopened in collateral proceedings. In capital cases, the right to be defended by a pleader had to be read liberally, but non-assignment of counsel did not automatically vitiate the trial unless it resulted in denial of a fair trial; on the facts, no such denial was shown. The mode of executing a death sentence by hanging, and the related requirement of assent or approval, were upheld as procedural matters covered by the amended regulation. The convictions and sentences remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>