<?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>1992 (10) TMI 256 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173040</link>
    <description>Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 impose liability where a person sells or offers for sale a stamp knowing, or having reason to believe, that it is counterfeit, or possesses a counterfeit Government stamp with the requisite knowledge and intent to use or dispose of it as genuine. The text explains that &quot;knowledge&quot; and &quot;reason to believe&quot; are distinct but related states of mind, inferable from surrounding circumstances. Here, the appellant&#039;s status as a licensed stamp vendor, the recovery of counterfeit stamps, and his unsupported explanation for possession were treated as sufficient to infer the necessary mens rea, and the conviction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:12:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 256 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173040</link>
      <description>Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 impose liability where a person sells or offers for sale a stamp knowing, or having reason to believe, that it is counterfeit, or possesses a counterfeit Government stamp with the requisite knowledge and intent to use or dispose of it as genuine. The text explains that &quot;knowledge&quot; and &quot;reason to believe&quot; are distinct but related states of mind, inferable from surrounding circumstances. Here, the appellant&#039;s status as a licensed stamp vendor, the recovery of counterfeit stamps, and his unsupported explanation for possession were treated as sufficient to infer the necessary mens rea, and the conviction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>