<?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>1982 (10) TMI 221 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299950</link>
    <description>A police report under section 173(2) must reflect completion of investigation, and section 173(8) allows only further investigation and a subsequent report; it does not permit a preliminary or incomplete charge-sheet to replace the statutory report. The real test is the substance of the report and whether it contains the particulars required by section 173(2) together with the connected documents and statements. Applying that test, the report filed on 30-1-1982 was treated as a complete charge-sheet, investigation was held to have been completed, and the petitioner was not entitled to bail under the proviso to section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:12:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (10) TMI 221 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299950</link>
      <description>A police report under section 173(2) must reflect completion of investigation, and section 173(8) allows only further investigation and a subsequent report; it does not permit a preliminary or incomplete charge-sheet to replace the statutory report. The real test is the substance of the report and whether it contains the particulars required by section 173(2) together with the connected documents and statements. Applying that test, the report filed on 30-1-1982 was treated as a complete charge-sheet, investigation was held to have been completed, and the petitioner was not entitled to bail under the proviso to section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>