<?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>1936 (4) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287379</link>
    <description>A special criminal procedure statute that incorporates the Code applies the Code&#039;s ancillary powers unless they are inconsistent with the special procedure. On that basis, withdrawal from prosecution under Section 494(a) could be permitted to secure an accused person&#039;s evidence as a witness, subject to judicial discretion and with due regard to Section 337 where available. The text also states that a Special Magistrate under the Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932 retained power to tender a conditional pardon under Section 337 and examine the approver, because the special Act displaced only the obligation to commit the accused after pardon. Earlier authorities were approved on that limited point, though one judge dissented on the power to tender pardon itself.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:08:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (4) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287379</link>
      <description>A special criminal procedure statute that incorporates the Code applies the Code&#039;s ancillary powers unless they are inconsistent with the special procedure. On that basis, withdrawal from prosecution under Section 494(a) could be permitted to secure an accused person&#039;s evidence as a witness, subject to judicial discretion and with due regard to Section 337 where available. The text also states that a Special Magistrate under the Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932 retained power to tender a conditional pardon under Section 337 and examine the approver, because the special Act displaced only the obligation to commit the accused after pardon. Earlier authorities were approved on that limited point, though one judge dissented on the power to tender pardon itself.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>