<?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 (8) TMI 1473 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311735</link>
    <description>Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not bar a State application or a victim&#039;s grievance merely because a private pleader is involved, and the provision was treated as inapplicable where the application was moved by the State. Sections 311 and 91 give the court wide powers to summon or recall witnesses and to require documents or things necessary or desirable for a just decision. The decoding register was considered relevant to decipher tower-location codes in call records, and the related witness testimony showed its importance. Closure of evidence was not treated as a complete bar, and refusal based on extraneous considerations was described as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:26:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1473 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311735</link>
      <description>Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not bar a State application or a victim&#039;s grievance merely because a private pleader is involved, and the provision was treated as inapplicable where the application was moved by the State. Sections 311 and 91 give the court wide powers to summon or recall witnesses and to require documents or things necessary or desirable for a just decision. The decoding register was considered relevant to decipher tower-location codes in call records, and the related witness testimony showed its importance. Closure of evidence was not treated as a complete bar, and refusal based on extraneous considerations was described as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>