<?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>1956 (5) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183742</link>
    <description>Mens rea remained an essential ingredient for contravention under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 because the provision did not clearly exclude guilty intention by express words or necessary implication. The discussion also notes that the presence of a separate clause requiring knowledge or reasonable belief for false statements did not convert breach of licence conditions into absolute liability. On the facts described, the prosecution did not prove that the proprietor knew the fortnightly returns were false, as the statements were prepared and submitted by the manager and the surrounding evidence was insufficient. The acquittal was therefore upheld on the basis that liability was not established without proof of knowledge or guilty intention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:49:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (5) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183742</link>
      <description>Mens rea remained an essential ingredient for contravention under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 because the provision did not clearly exclude guilty intention by express words or necessary implication. The discussion also notes that the presence of a separate clause requiring knowledge or reasonable belief for false statements did not convert breach of licence conditions into absolute liability. On the facts described, the prosecution did not prove that the proprietor knew the fortnightly returns were false, as the statements were prepared and submitted by the manager and the surrounding evidence was insufficient. The acquittal was therefore upheld on the basis that liability was not established without proof of knowledge or guilty intention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>