<?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>1986 (4) TMI 338 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161267</link>
    <description>At the charge-framing stage in a complaint case, the Court applied the prima facie test and held that, where foundational facts are shown, the statutory presumption under the corruption law may be relied on. On the materials, the evidence disclosed a corrupt nexus between official favour and payments or donations, justifying charges for conspiracy, cheating, corruption offences, and allied provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, extortion was not made out because the record did not show fear of injury or dishonest inducement to deliver property; mere pressure or expectation of favourable official action was insufficient. Charges were sustained only on the corruption-related counts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 338 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161267</link>
      <description>At the charge-framing stage in a complaint case, the Court applied the prima facie test and held that, where foundational facts are shown, the statutory presumption under the corruption law may be relied on. On the materials, the evidence disclosed a corrupt nexus between official favour and payments or donations, justifying charges for conspiracy, cheating, corruption offences, and allied provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, extortion was not made out because the record did not show fear of injury or dishonest inducement to deliver property; mere pressure or expectation of favourable official action was insufficient. Charges were sustained only on the corruption-related counts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>