<?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>1974 (11) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169319</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the widow of the deceased appellant, setting aside the order of conviction, the substantive sentence, and the sentence of fine. The Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be unreliable and noted several discrepancies, ultimately preferring the accused&#039;s version that the money was planted. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was overturned, with the fine ordered to be refunded to the appellant&#039;s widow.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:59:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (11) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169319</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the widow of the deceased appellant, setting aside the order of conviction, the substantive sentence, and the sentence of fine. The Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be unreliable and noted several discrepancies, ultimately preferring the accused&#039;s version that the money was planted. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was overturned, with the fine ordered to be refunded to the appellant&#039;s widow.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>