https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173490 Conviction for contravention of a penal order could not be sustained where the prosecution evidence did not reliably establish the actual words used at the meeting; hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, and only a generalised gist were insufficient for proof of the charged misconduct. The Court further held that, for Rule 118(1)(a), the prosecution had to prove that the strike was connected with an industrial dispute because that connection was an essential ingredient of the offence. Judicial notice could be taken of the strike and its imminence, but not of the missing statutory nexus; the failure of proof entitled the appellants to acquittal. en-us Tue, 15 Feb 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:16:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173490 Conviction for contravention of a penal order could not be sustained where the prosecution evidence did not reliably establish the actual words used at the meeting; hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, and only a generalised gist were insufficient for proof of the charged misconduct. The Court further held that, for Rule 118(1)(a), the prosecution had to prove that the strike was connected with an industrial dispute because that connection was an essential ingredient of the offence. Judicial notice could be taken of the strike and its imminence, but not of the missing statutory nexus; the failure of proof entitled the appellants to acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Feb 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173490