<?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>1977 (11) TMI 142 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273554</link>
    <description>A charge of criminal conspiracy must be read as a whole to identify its object. Where the recitals showed that the conspiracy was directed to cheating by personation, the surrounding acts, including preparation of spurious passports and forged endorsements, were treated as means to achieve that object. Criminal conspiracy is complete on agreement to commit the unlawful object, and every conspirator need not be charged with or personally involved in each substantive act. Because the object was a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment extending to three years, prior sanction under section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was not required, and the absence of express descriptive words did not invalidate the charge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:46:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (11) TMI 142 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273554</link>
      <description>A charge of criminal conspiracy must be read as a whole to identify its object. Where the recitals showed that the conspiracy was directed to cheating by personation, the surrounding acts, including preparation of spurious passports and forged endorsements, were treated as means to achieve that object. Criminal conspiracy is complete on agreement to commit the unlawful object, and every conspirator need not be charged with or personally involved in each substantive act. Because the object was a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment extending to three years, prior sanction under section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was not required, and the absence of express descriptive words did not invalidate the charge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>