<?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>1950 (10) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281753</link>
    <description>A criminal appellate judgment of the High Court attains finality when it is recorded in open court and acted upon by issuance of the writ under seal; later transcription and initialling are ministerial steps and do not preserve any power to review or alter the order. The provisions in Chapter XXVI of the Code governing signature and alteration of criminal judgments were held inapplicable to such appellate judgments. Any post-delivery reconsideration is confined to exceptional cases of an apparent error on the face of the record or an obvious factual mistake causing miscarriage of justice, and a fresh defence or new argument is not enough. On that basis, the application to reopen the order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:29:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (10) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281753</link>
      <description>A criminal appellate judgment of the High Court attains finality when it is recorded in open court and acted upon by issuance of the writ under seal; later transcription and initialling are ministerial steps and do not preserve any power to review or alter the order. The provisions in Chapter XXVI of the Code governing signature and alteration of criminal judgments were held inapplicable to such appellate judgments. Any post-delivery reconsideration is confined to exceptional cases of an apparent error on the face of the record or an obvious factual mistake causing miscarriage of justice, and a fresh defence or new argument is not enough. On that basis, the application to reopen the order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>