<?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>1995 (5) TMI 273 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184142</link>
    <description>Illegal police detention was established on the basis of the CBI enquiry, contemporaneous statements, affidavits and corroborative circumstances, and the contrary police version was found false. Filing false affidavits and making false statements on oath in pending judicial proceedings was held to obstruct the due course of justice, so criminal contempt was made out against the concerned police officials and the taxi driver. The principal officers&#039; apologies were rejected as belated and insincere, while the senior State functionaries&#039; apologies were accepted because their lapse arose from a mistaken understanding of the order and system. Compensation was refused despite State responsibility for the unlawful acts of its officers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:51:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 273 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184142</link>
      <description>Illegal police detention was established on the basis of the CBI enquiry, contemporaneous statements, affidavits and corroborative circumstances, and the contrary police version was found false. Filing false affidavits and making false statements on oath in pending judicial proceedings was held to obstruct the due course of justice, so criminal contempt was made out against the concerned police officials and the taxi driver. The principal officers&#039; apologies were rejected as belated and insincere, while the senior State functionaries&#039; apologies were accepted because their lapse arose from a mistaken understanding of the order and system. Compensation was refused despite State responsibility for the unlawful acts of its officers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>