<?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>1998 (4) TMI 579 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312889</link>
    <description>Communal violence that generates fear, insecurity and disruption of social harmony may fall within the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 where the proved facts show wider societal impact beyond ordinary crime. Approval and sanction under Section 20A are treated as valid when the sanctioning authority&#039;s order reflects application of mind to the investigation material and the statutory objection does not vitiate the proceedings. Conviction cannot safely rest on eyewitness testimony where identification is tainted by delay, prior exposure of the accused, absence of a test identification parade, contradictions with earlier statements, and material omissions; reliable proof of actual participation remains essential.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:13:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 579 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312889</link>
      <description>Communal violence that generates fear, insecurity and disruption of social harmony may fall within the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 where the proved facts show wider societal impact beyond ordinary crime. Approval and sanction under Section 20A are treated as valid when the sanctioning authority&#039;s order reflects application of mind to the investigation material and the statutory objection does not vitiate the proceedings. Conviction cannot safely rest on eyewitness testimony where identification is tainted by delay, prior exposure of the accused, absence of a test identification parade, contradictions with earlier statements, and material omissions; reliable proof of actual participation remains essential.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>