<?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>1960 (10) TMI 91 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187495</link>
    <description>Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was held applicable to convictions recorded before the Act came into force, because the provision authorised preventive action and did not create a new offence or impose punishment for past conduct. The words &quot;has been convicted&quot; were interpreted to include past convictions, subject to the statute&#039;s language and scheme. An externment order under the section must still be made bona fide and should rely on a conviction sufficiently proximate in time, depending on the facts. The High Court&#039;s contrary view on retrospectivity was rejected, and the matter was remitted for consideration of the remaining issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:18:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (10) TMI 91 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187495</link>
      <description>Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was held applicable to convictions recorded before the Act came into force, because the provision authorised preventive action and did not create a new offence or impose punishment for past conduct. The words &quot;has been convicted&quot; were interpreted to include past convictions, subject to the statute&#039;s language and scheme. An externment order under the section must still be made bona fide and should rely on a conviction sufficiently proximate in time, depending on the facts. The High Court&#039;s contrary view on retrospectivity was rejected, and the matter was remitted for consideration of the remaining issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>