<?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>2005 (4) TMI 584 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181217</link>
    <description>Before extending probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the court must call for and consider the probation officer&#039;s report and assess the offender&#039;s antecedents, including any prior conviction. The text treats that report as mandatory in the exercise of discretion, and says probation was not sustainable where the offender was a previous convict and the required report was not obtained. It also states that suppression of an earlier conviction and non-disclosure of material facts amounts to concealment of vital information, disentitling the offender to relief and justifying interference with the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2024 17:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 584 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181217</link>
      <description>Before extending probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the court must call for and consider the probation officer&#039;s report and assess the offender&#039;s antecedents, including any prior conviction. The text treats that report as mandatory in the exercise of discretion, and says probation was not sustainable where the offender was a previous convict and the required report was not obtained. It also states that suppression of an earlier conviction and non-disclosure of material facts amounts to concealment of vital information, disentitling the offender to relief and justifying interference with the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>