<?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>1962 (11) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192305</link>
    <description>A special court under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 could take cognizance of an allotted case on receipt of the statutory allotment and record, without a complaint or compliance with section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, because the court was not a Magistrate for that purpose and the special statute displaced the ordinary committal requirement. The 1960 amendment to section 5 was procedural rather than declaratory or retrospective, so it did not unsettle proceedings already validly commenced under the unamended Act. The special court&#039;s jurisdiction therefore remained intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 May 2017 12:44:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (11) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192305</link>
      <description>A special court under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 could take cognizance of an allotted case on receipt of the statutory allotment and record, without a complaint or compliance with section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, because the court was not a Magistrate for that purpose and the special statute displaced the ordinary committal requirement. The 1960 amendment to section 5 was procedural rather than declaratory or retrospective, so it did not unsettle proceedings already validly commenced under the unamended Act. The special court&#039;s jurisdiction therefore remained intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>