<?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>2022 (11) TMI 1084 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430660</link>
    <description>Section 360 CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act permit release on probation where the offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and the offender&#039;s character, antecedents and surrounding circumstances support a reformative approach. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused had no criminal antecedents, the compensation had been paid, and the probation period was completed without breach. Allegations of illegal possession of property were treated as civil in nature and did not justify denial of probation. The grant of probation was therefore upheld, and no revisional interference was found necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2022 08:06:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1084 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430660</link>
      <description>Section 360 CrPC and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act permit release on probation where the offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and the offender&#039;s character, antecedents and surrounding circumstances support a reformative approach. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused had no criminal antecedents, the compensation had been paid, and the probation period was completed without breach. Allegations of illegal possession of property were treated as civil in nature and did not justify denial of probation. The grant of probation was therefore upheld, and no revisional interference was found necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>