<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1424 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198256</link>
    <description>A court receiving a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may accept it, disagree with it and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), or direct further investigation under Section 173(8) where the ends of justice require additional inquiry. That power is not displaced merely because a final report has already been filed. However, the court cannot direct that further investigation be conducted by a particular police officer or by an officer of a specified rank, because selection of the investigating officer remains with the investigating agency. The result was that the direction for further investigation stood, but the rank-specific limitation was impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1424 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198256</link>
      <description>A court receiving a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may accept it, disagree with it and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), or direct further investigation under Section 173(8) where the ends of justice require additional inquiry. That power is not displaced merely because a final report has already been filed. However, the court cannot direct that further investigation be conducted by a particular police officer or by an officer of a specified rank, because selection of the investigating officer remains with the investigating agency. The result was that the direction for further investigation stood, but the rank-specific limitation was impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>