<?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>1958 (2) TMI 44 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193425</link>
    <description>Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was construed to require that a memorandum of appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against, not a plain copy. The provision was read with the statutory scheme on judgments, supply of copies, limitation, and appellate scrutiny, which indicated that the appellate court must receive an authentic official document for admission, rejection, and related orders. The construction was also supported by the Indian Evidence Act treatment of judgments as public documents and the rule that certified copies are admissible secondary evidence of such documents. On that basis, filing a plain copy did not satisfy the requirement, and the appeal was incompetent as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:29:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (2) TMI 44 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193425</link>
      <description>Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was construed to require that a memorandum of appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against, not a plain copy. The provision was read with the statutory scheme on judgments, supply of copies, limitation, and appellate scrutiny, which indicated that the appellate court must receive an authentic official document for admission, rejection, and related orders. The construction was also supported by the Indian Evidence Act treatment of judgments as public documents and the rule that certified copies are admissible secondary evidence of such documents. On that basis, filing a plain copy did not satisfy the requirement, and the appeal was incompetent as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>