<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1354 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296486</link>
    <description>A rule requiring a convicted person to surrender to custody before a criminal revision is listed for admission is a valid procedural regulation designed to prevent absconding and manage revision proceedings. It is not arbitrary or discriminatory, and it does not conflict with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also recognised that its power to grant exemption from surrender in appropriate cases remains intact, so the rule cannot be read as barring listing where such exemption is granted. The challenge to Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 therefore failed, and the rule was upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2022 17:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=650433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1354 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296486</link>
      <description>A rule requiring a convicted person to surrender to custody before a criminal revision is listed for admission is a valid procedural regulation designed to prevent absconding and manage revision proceedings. It is not arbitrary or discriminatory, and it does not conflict with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also recognised that its power to grant exemption from surrender in appropriate cases remains intact, so the rule cannot be read as barring listing where such exemption is granted. The challenge to Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 therefore failed, and the rule was upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>