<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1631 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314106</link>
    <description>At the pre-charge stage, Section 91 CrPC may be invoked only for documents that are necessary or desirable for the proceeding then in issue, and not to gather defence material from the police file. The Delhi HC held that the accused had no indefeasible right to production of final reports or internal investigative opinions not relied upon by the prosecution, since such material was neither part of the prosecution case nor expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It also noted that transfer of investigation before filing of any charge sheet did not amount to impermissible reinvestigation, and no manifest jurisdictional error was shown to justify writ interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 17:10:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1631 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314106</link>
      <description>At the pre-charge stage, Section 91 CrPC may be invoked only for documents that are necessary or desirable for the proceeding then in issue, and not to gather defence material from the police file. The Delhi HC held that the accused had no indefeasible right to production of final reports or internal investigative opinions not relied upon by the prosecution, since such material was neither part of the prosecution case nor expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It also noted that transfer of investigation before filing of any charge sheet did not amount to impermissible reinvestigation, and no manifest jurisdictional error was shown to justify writ interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>