https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183585 A conviction for abetment under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand unless the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 are independently proved. The evidence did not establish instigation, and no conspiracy was pleaded or proved. The only possible basis was intentional aiding, but the appellant's conduct was limited to receiving money at the instance of the alleged principal offender for counting and passing it on. Once the principal offender was acquitted, the substantive offence under Section 161 was not treated as having been committed, and there was no intentional aid of a non-existent offence. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. en-us Tue, 13 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183585 A conviction for abetment under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand unless the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 are independently proved. The evidence did not establish instigation, and no conspiracy was pleaded or proved. The only possible basis was intentional aiding, but the appellant's conduct was limited to receiving money at the instance of the alleged principal offender for counting and passing it on. Once the principal offender was acquitted, the substantive offence under Section 161 was not treated as having been committed, and there was no intentional aid of a non-existent offence. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183585