<?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>1976 (12) TMI 187 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170034</link>
    <description>The statutory presumption under section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arises only when the prosecution proves possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income and the accused cannot satisfactorily account for them. On the facts discussed, several claimed receipts were accepted, several prosecution expenditure items were reduced or disallowed, and some alleged assets were found to belong to others. After recalculating income, expenditure, and assets, the excess was considered too small to justify an inference of disproportion sufficient to attract the presumption, and the conviction resting on that presumption could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 10:12:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (12) TMI 187 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170034</link>
      <description>The statutory presumption under section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arises only when the prosecution proves possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income and the accused cannot satisfactorily account for them. On the facts discussed, several claimed receipts were accepted, several prosecution expenditure items were reduced or disallowed, and some alleged assets were found to belong to others. After recalculating income, expenditure, and assets, the excess was considered too small to justify an inference of disproportion sufficient to attract the presumption, and the conviction resting on that presumption could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>