<?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>2013 (5) TMI 966 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196725</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The court found that independent witnesses were not essential, police testimony could suffice, Section 50 of the Act did not apply to vehicle searches, the opium quantity was deemed commercial, and the non-production of the scooter did not undermine the prosecution&#039;s case. The court emphasized the quality of evidence over quantity and rejected retroactive application of the 2001 amendment to pending cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:36:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 966 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196725</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The court found that independent witnesses were not essential, police testimony could suffice, Section 50 of the Act did not apply to vehicle searches, the opium quantity was deemed commercial, and the non-production of the scooter did not undermine the prosecution&#039;s case. The court emphasized the quality of evidence over quantity and rejected retroactive application of the 2001 amendment to pending cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>