<?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>1966 (2) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312893</link>
    <description>False affidavits filed for use in a judicial proceeding may amount to giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence when the statements are made on oath and are intended to influence the court, rather than merely constituting a false declaration. Where the person proceeded against is a witness before the court and the alleged falsehood falls within the special procedure for prosecuting false evidence, that procedure is exclusive; proceedings under the general complaint provision are barred. The court therefore treated the special witness-prosecution mechanism as the governing route for such allegations and rejected recourse to the broader procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:27:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (2) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312893</link>
      <description>False affidavits filed for use in a judicial proceeding may amount to giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence when the statements are made on oath and are intended to influence the court, rather than merely constituting a false declaration. Where the person proceeded against is a witness before the court and the alleged falsehood falls within the special procedure for prosecuting false evidence, that procedure is exclusive; proceedings under the general complaint provision are barred. The court therefore treated the special witness-prosecution mechanism as the governing route for such allegations and rejected recourse to the broader procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>