<?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>1985 (4) TMI 346 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310218</link>
    <description>The petition under Section 482 sought to set aside an order allowing re-examination of the investigating officer to prove a confessional statement. The court emphasized fair trial principles, stating that disclosure statements should be recorded promptly and in the first person. Recalling the officer after evidence conclusion was deemed unnecessary and could result in a miscarriage of justice. The petition was allowed, and the order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:39:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (4) TMI 346 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310218</link>
      <description>The petition under Section 482 sought to set aside an order allowing re-examination of the investigating officer to prove a confessional statement. The court emphasized fair trial principles, stating that disclosure statements should be recorded promptly and in the first person. Recalling the officer after evidence conclusion was deemed unnecessary and could result in a miscarriage of justice. The petition was allowed, and the order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>