<?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>1961 (4) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199812</link>
    <description>A court with territorial jurisdiction over substantive offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy may also try the conspiracy charge itself, even if the conspiracy was formed outside that jurisdiction. The territorial rule in section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held not to be an absolute bar where joinder and trial provisions permit the offences to be tried together. On that basis, the Court of Session at Madras had jurisdiction to try the conspiracy count, and the challenge to the commitment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:00:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 114 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199812</link>
      <description>A court with territorial jurisdiction over substantive offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy may also try the conspiracy charge itself, even if the conspiracy was formed outside that jurisdiction. The territorial rule in section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held not to be an absolute bar where joinder and trial provisions permit the offences to be tried together. On that basis, the Court of Session at Madras had jurisdiction to try the conspiracy count, and the challenge to the commitment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>