<?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>1998 (12) TMI 629 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196976</link>
    <description>Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was read broadly to cover appropriate investigation-stage proceedings, not merely inquiry or trial, where arrest is shown and the court is informed; on that basis, prisoner transfer and production warrants were treated as legally sustainable. The High Court also held that execution of such warrants within its territorial limits created part of the cause of action, giving it jurisdiction to examine the challenge. Section 269 was treated as regulating prison administration rather than creating a personal right in the accused to resist transfer. Because the transfer was authorised by law, no infringement of Article 21 arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:51:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 629 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196976</link>
      <description>Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was read broadly to cover appropriate investigation-stage proceedings, not merely inquiry or trial, where arrest is shown and the court is informed; on that basis, prisoner transfer and production warrants were treated as legally sustainable. The High Court also held that execution of such warrants within its territorial limits created part of the cause of action, giving it jurisdiction to examine the challenge. Section 269 was treated as regulating prison administration rather than creating a personal right in the accused to resist transfer. Because the transfer was authorised by law, no infringement of Article 21 arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>