<?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>1961 (1) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308025</link>
    <description>The SC reiterated that separate trial is the rule and joint trial is the exception in conspiracy prosecutions. A joint trial is permissible only when the material prima facie shows that the accused were parties to the same conspiracy or that the offences arose from the same transaction; Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot create that foundational link by itself. On the facts, the Magistrate found no prima facie material connecting the appellants to the original conspiracy or showing their knowledge of it, and the High Court identified no legal error in that discretion. The order directing separate trials and limiting the charges was therefore restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 May 2023 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (1) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308025</link>
      <description>The SC reiterated that separate trial is the rule and joint trial is the exception in conspiracy prosecutions. A joint trial is permissible only when the material prima facie shows that the accused were parties to the same conspiracy or that the offences arose from the same transaction; Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot create that foundational link by itself. On the facts, the Magistrate found no prima facie material connecting the appellants to the original conspiracy or showing their knowledge of it, and the High Court identified no legal error in that discretion. The order directing separate trials and limiting the charges was therefore restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>