<?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>1949 (5) TMI 22 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311371</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the HC&#039;s decision that the initial prosecution was void due to an invalid sanction, rendering the Presidency Magistrate&#039;s Court incompetent. Consequently, Section 403 CrPC did not prevent fresh prosecutions, and the Common Law rule against double jeopardy was deemed inapplicable as the appellant was never in jeopardy due to the initial trial&#039;s nullity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 13:21:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (5) TMI 22 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311371</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the HC&#039;s decision that the initial prosecution was void due to an invalid sanction, rendering the Presidency Magistrate&#039;s Court incompetent. Consequently, Section 403 CrPC did not prevent fresh prosecutions, and the Common Law rule against double jeopardy was deemed inapplicable as the appellant was never in jeopardy due to the initial trial&#039;s nullity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>