<?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 (9) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195750</link>
    <description>Where a witness is alleged to have intentionally given false evidence in the same judicial proceeding, section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is the exclusive procedure and excludes recourse to sections 476 to 479. The Court treated committal proceedings as part of the same proceeding culminating in the Sessions Court&#039;s judgment, so contradictory evidence at the committal stage and at trial fell within section 479-A. Because the complaint had to be initiated on the Court&#039;s opinion formed at the time of judgment or final order, the High Court erred in sustaining the prosecution under the general procedure. The discharge ordered by the Magistrate was therefore restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 15:32:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (9) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195750</link>
      <description>Where a witness is alleged to have intentionally given false evidence in the same judicial proceeding, section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is the exclusive procedure and excludes recourse to sections 476 to 479. The Court treated committal proceedings as part of the same proceeding culminating in the Sessions Court&#039;s judgment, so contradictory evidence at the committal stage and at trial fell within section 479-A. Because the complaint had to be initiated on the Court&#039;s opinion formed at the time of judgment or final order, the High Court erred in sustaining the prosecution under the general procedure. The discharge ordered by the Magistrate was therefore restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>