<?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>1932 (12) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287380</link>
    <description>Approver evidence, when materially corroborated by surrounding circumstances, may sustain convictions for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for dacoity. The accused were found together with weapons and other incriminating articles, and their explanations were treated as vague and unsupported, so the convictions were upheld. A special procedure under the governing Ordinance also prevailed over the general Code of Criminal Procedure: because the Ordinance required the special Magistrate to try the case and was inconsistent with commitment to the Court of Session, the Magistrate was not bound to commit the accused after pardon was tendered to the approver. The appeals therefore failed and the convictions and sentences were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:17:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (12) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287380</link>
      <description>Approver evidence, when materially corroborated by surrounding circumstances, may sustain convictions for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for dacoity. The accused were found together with weapons and other incriminating articles, and their explanations were treated as vague and unsupported, so the convictions were upheld. A special procedure under the governing Ordinance also prevailed over the general Code of Criminal Procedure: because the Ordinance required the special Magistrate to try the case and was inconsistent with commitment to the Court of Session, the Magistrate was not bound to commit the accused after pardon was tendered to the approver. The appeals therefore failed and the convictions and sentences were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>