<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1007 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177326</link>
    <description>Electronic records can be proved only by strict compliance with the statutory requirements for electronic evidence, including the prescribed certificate; general secondary-evidence rules do not override that regime. The commentary also explains that a corrupt practice based on a leaflet and electronic material must be supported by clear, cogent and credible evidence linking the candidate to publication or distribution with consent. Mere knowledge or suspicion is insufficient, and the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the facts discussed, the electronic material was inadmissible and the remaining evidence did not establish consent or corrupt practice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 16:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1007 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177326</link>
      <description>Electronic records can be proved only by strict compliance with the statutory requirements for electronic evidence, including the prescribed certificate; general secondary-evidence rules do not override that regime. The commentary also explains that a corrupt practice based on a leaflet and electronic material must be supported by clear, cogent and credible evidence linking the candidate to publication or distribution with consent. Mere knowledge or suspicion is insufficient, and the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the facts discussed, the electronic material was inadmissible and the remaining evidence did not establish consent or corrupt practice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>