https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5377 Statements recorded under section 39 of FERA could not, without the statutory fiction under section 40 being validly invoked, be treated as statements in a judicial proceeding for sustaining perjury charges under section 193 IPC, especially where retractions were later made; the convictions of the first two appellants under section 193 IPC and allied conspiracy were therefore unsustainable. The Tribunal's final finding that the seized money did not belong to the first appellant destroyed the factual foundation of the prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, so those convictions and the related conspiracy charge also could not stand. The third appellant's conviction failed for want of ? en-us Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5377 Statements recorded under section 39 of FERA could not, without the statutory fiction under section 40 being validly invoked, be treated as statements in a judicial proceeding for sustaining perjury charges under section 193 IPC, especially where retractions were later made; the convictions of the first two appellants under section 193 IPC and allied conspiracy were therefore unsustainable. The Tribunal's final finding that the seized money did not belong to the first appellant destroyed the factual foundation of the prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, so those convictions and the related conspiracy charge also could not stand. The third appellant's conviction failed for want of ? Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5377