<?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>2012 (8) TMI 1093 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194498</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the modification of the sentence by the High Court and acquitting the accused. The Court permitted the compounding of the offense under section 324 IPC, which occurred before the 2006 amendment, based on the parties&#039; mutual agreement to compound the offense. This decision aligns with the precedent that offenses compoundable at the time of occurrence can be compounded even if subsequent amendments make them non-compoundable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:16:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 1093 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194498</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the modification of the sentence by the High Court and acquitting the accused. The Court permitted the compounding of the offense under section 324 IPC, which occurred before the 2006 amendment, based on the parties&#039; mutual agreement to compound the offense. This decision aligns with the precedent that offenses compoundable at the time of occurrence can be compounded even if subsequent amendments make them non-compoundable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>