<?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>2004 (12) TMI 736 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313950</link>
    <description>A remand order granting police custody is treated as interlocutory in nature because it does not affect the progress or final decision of the trial, so revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable against such an order. By contrast, refusal of remand may prejudice investigation, and a prosecution revision against that refusal can be maintainable. Applying that principle, the court noted that the prosecution had promptly sought remand, the sessions court granted only two days&#039; custody on the investigative material, and no illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error was shown to justify interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 16:44:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 736 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313950</link>
      <description>A remand order granting police custody is treated as interlocutory in nature because it does not affect the progress or final decision of the trial, so revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable against such an order. By contrast, refusal of remand may prejudice investigation, and a prosecution revision against that refusal can be maintainable. Applying that principle, the court noted that the prosecution had promptly sought remand, the sessions court granted only two days&#039; custody on the investigative material, and no illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error was shown to justify interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>