<?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>1958 (11) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288465</link>
    <description>An approver&#039;s pardon depends on a continuing statutory duty to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts at every stage where he is lawfully called to testify, and that duty is not confined to examination before the committing Magistrate and the Sessions Court. Failure to comply forfeits the pardon, and the omission to examine the approver in the Sessions Court does not prevent proceedings against him. The evidence discussed was also insufficient to establish abetment of abduction, since it showed only transmission of a message between confederates and did not prove the ingredients of the charge or the adult abduction alleged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:19:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (11) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288465</link>
      <description>An approver&#039;s pardon depends on a continuing statutory duty to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts at every stage where he is lawfully called to testify, and that duty is not confined to examination before the committing Magistrate and the Sessions Court. Failure to comply forfeits the pardon, and the omission to examine the approver in the Sessions Court does not prevent proceedings against him. The evidence discussed was also insufficient to establish abetment of abduction, since it showed only transmission of a message between confederates and did not prove the ingredients of the charge or the adult abduction alleged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>