https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169236 For an offence of secreting postal articles by a postal officer, the prosecution must affirmatively prove that the articles were recovered from the accused's exclusive possession; mere recovery from an almirah shared with another occupant was insufficient, so the conviction could not stand. The Court also held that delay in delivery did not by itself take the letters out of transmission by post, and that entrustment was not required for secretion. Alleged irregularities in search, examination of the accused, reversal of acquittal, and sentence did not provide any independent basis to sustain the conviction. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:25:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169236 For an offence of secreting postal articles by a postal officer, the prosecution must affirmatively prove that the articles were recovered from the accused's exclusive possession; mere recovery from an almirah shared with another occupant was insufficient, so the conviction could not stand. The Court also held that delay in delivery did not by itself take the letters out of transmission by post, and that entrustment was not required for secretion. Alleged irregularities in search, examination of the accused, reversal of acquittal, and sentence did not provide any independent basis to sustain the conviction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169236