<?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>1968 (11) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278373</link>
    <description>Non-compliance with the search safeguards in section 15 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women &amp; Girls Act, 1956 did not by itself vitiate the trial, because the governing criminal procedure still applied and the defect was curable unless it caused prejudice or a failure of justice. The Court held that failure to record adequate grounds for search or to secure local panch witnesses was an irregularity, not an illegality, where no prejudice to the accused was shown. The conviction was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:23:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (11) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278373</link>
      <description>Non-compliance with the search safeguards in section 15 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women &amp; Girls Act, 1956 did not by itself vitiate the trial, because the governing criminal procedure still applied and the defect was curable unless it caused prejudice or a failure of justice. The Court held that failure to record adequate grounds for search or to secure local panch witnesses was an irregularity, not an illegality, where no prejudice to the accused was shown. The conviction was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>