Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
At the stage of charge, the test is grave suspicion, not proof of conviction; applying that standard, the court found belated embellishments, material improvements, and weak medical corroboration insufficient to sustain prosecution against the officers, so discharge was upheld. It also held that CCTV footage was inadmissible without a Section 65B certificate, and the copied recording could not be relied on because its integrity was not properly proved. Once excluded, the electronic material did not support the allegation of illegal apprehension, and the limited scope of revision justified no interference with the Sessions Court's order.
At the stage of charge, the test is grave suspicion, not proof of conviction; applying that standard, the court found belated embellishments, material improvements, and weak medical corroboration insufficient to sustain prosecution against the officers, so discharge was upheld. It also held that CCTV footage was inadmissible without a Section 65B certificate, and the copied recording could not be relied on because its integrity was not properly proved. Once excluded, the electronic material did not support the allegation of illegal apprehension, and the limited scope of revision justified no interference with the Sessions Court's order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.