https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278219 Supervisory and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 and Sections 397 and 482 CrPC is discretionary and need not be used to quash an order merely because it may be irregular, especially where the challenged letters rogatory have already yielded documents in the investigating agency's custody. The High Court treated the challenge as academic because interference would serve no practical purpose. It also noted that evidence is judged by relevancy, and the mode of obtaining relevant material does not by itself make it inadmissible unless a legal prohibition applies. The concurring opinion added that an accused generally lacks locus at the investigative stage to control evidence collection, and admissibility objections arise when the evidence is tendered. en-us Thu, 12 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:48:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278219 Supervisory and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 and Sections 397 and 482 CrPC is discretionary and need not be used to quash an order merely because it may be irregular, especially where the challenged letters rogatory have already yielded documents in the investigating agency's custody. The High Court treated the challenge as academic because interference would serve no practical purpose. It also noted that evidence is judged by relevancy, and the mode of obtaining relevant material does not by itself make it inadmissible unless a legal prohibition applies. The concurring opinion added that an accused generally lacks locus at the investigative stage to control evidence collection, and admissibility objections arise when the evidence is tendered. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278219