<?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>1992 (3) TMI 366 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301126</link>
    <description>During investigation, non-bailable warrants cannot be issued against an accused residing abroad unless the statutory conditions for such warrants are satisfied, including a basis to treat the person as evading arrest. The Court held that Section 160 CrPC did not extend police attendance powers to a person outside the officer&#039;s territorial limits, and Section 73 could not be used to secure presence merely for interrogation. On the inspection issue, the refusal to inspect the record was upheld because the vakalatnama and authorisation documents were inconsistent and the authenticity requirement was treated as a matter of judicial discretion. The challenge to that order therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 10:53:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 366 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301126</link>
      <description>During investigation, non-bailable warrants cannot be issued against an accused residing abroad unless the statutory conditions for such warrants are satisfied, including a basis to treat the person as evading arrest. The Court held that Section 160 CrPC did not extend police attendance powers to a person outside the officer&#039;s territorial limits, and Section 73 could not be used to secure presence merely for interrogation. On the inspection issue, the refusal to inspect the record was upheld because the vakalatnama and authorisation documents were inconsistent and the authenticity requirement was treated as a matter of judicial discretion. The challenge to that order therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>