<?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>2006 (11) TMI 714 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303199</link>
    <description>Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits consecutive sentences on multiple convictions at one trial, but the aggregate punishment remains capped by the proviso. Because the combined sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum, the court held the 20-year term unlawful and reduced it to the period already undergone. The appellant was therefore entitled to release forthwith if not required in any other case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 714 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303199</link>
      <description>Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits consecutive sentences on multiple convictions at one trial, but the aggregate punishment remains capped by the proviso. Because the combined sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum, the court held the 20-year term unlawful and reduced it to the period already undergone. The appellant was therefore entitled to release forthwith if not required in any other case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>