<?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>1959 (12) TMI 53 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192858</link>
    <description>A special criminal procedure survived Article 14 scrutiny because the legislature adopted a clear classification based on offences committed in disturbed areas, with a rational nexus to speedy trial, public peace and state security. The fact that some offences related to a prior disturbance, or that an area was later restored to peace, was treated as an incidental circumstance and did not make the classification arbitrary. The proviso allowing non-scheduled offences to be tried with scheduled offences was also upheld because it merely enabled joinder of allied offences as an ordinary incident of criminal trial and did not create discriminatory treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=475647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (12) TMI 53 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192858</link>
      <description>A special criminal procedure survived Article 14 scrutiny because the legislature adopted a clear classification based on offences committed in disturbed areas, with a rational nexus to speedy trial, public peace and state security. The fact that some offences related to a prior disturbance, or that an area was later restored to peace, was treated as an incidental circumstance and did not make the classification arbitrary. The proviso allowing non-scheduled offences to be tried with scheduled offences was also upheld because it merely enabled joinder of allied offences as an ordinary incident of criminal trial and did not create discriminatory treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>