<?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>1952 (10) TMI 41 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183996</link>
    <description>Disqualification for personal interest under the Criminal Procedure Code arises only when the interest is substantial and creates real or reasonably apprehended bias; a Magistrate who merely granted sanction to prosecute was not treated as personally interested, so the trial was not vitiated. Forfeiture of a security bond under the Code applies only where the bond was taken by the court or falls within the statutory scope of the provision; a bond taken by a Procurement Inspector did not qualify, so the forfeiture direction could not stand. The enhanced imprisonment was also set aside, while the conviction and fine remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:56:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (10) TMI 41 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183996</link>
      <description>Disqualification for personal interest under the Criminal Procedure Code arises only when the interest is substantial and creates real or reasonably apprehended bias; a Magistrate who merely granted sanction to prosecute was not treated as personally interested, so the trial was not vitiated. Forfeiture of a security bond under the Code applies only where the bond was taken by the court or falls within the statutory scope of the provision; a bond taken by a Procurement Inspector did not qualify, so the forfeiture direction could not stand. The enhanced imprisonment was also set aside, while the conviction and fine remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>