<?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>1983 (1) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309865</link>
    <description>Superior police officers may investigate throughout their appointed local area, and police proceedings are not invalid merely because the investigating officer lacked territorial empowerment, where statutory authorisation and the duty of assisting another officer apply. An arrest challenge based on non-communication of the offence particulars fails where the arrestee is effectively informed of the grounds of arrest and the safeguards under Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) are substantially met. The text also distinguishes preventive detention safeguards under Article 22(5) and treats the cited authorities as fact-specific. On these principles, the challenge to investigation, arrest, and remand was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2023 14:31:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309865</link>
      <description>Superior police officers may investigate throughout their appointed local area, and police proceedings are not invalid merely because the investigating officer lacked territorial empowerment, where statutory authorisation and the duty of assisting another officer apply. An arrest challenge based on non-communication of the offence particulars fails where the arrestee is effectively informed of the grounds of arrest and the safeguards under Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) are substantially met. The text also distinguishes preventive detention safeguards under Article 22(5) and treats the cited authorities as fact-specific. On these principles, the challenge to investigation, arrest, and remand was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>