<?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>2016 (12) TMI 124 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335479</link>
    <description>In prosecutions under the Pondicherry Excise law, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each essential ingredient, including unauthorised possession or dealing with intoxicating liquor and a clear nexus between the accused and the premises or contraband. Here, the seizure witnesses did not support the case, the premises were not proved to belong to the accused, and mere presence at the spot was held insufficient to establish liability. The alleged liquor was also not proved by acceptable scientific evidence, as the bottles were not sent for chemical analysis and the report was not duly proved. The acquittal was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 124 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335479</link>
      <description>In prosecutions under the Pondicherry Excise law, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each essential ingredient, including unauthorised possession or dealing with intoxicating liquor and a clear nexus between the accused and the premises or contraband. Here, the seizure witnesses did not support the case, the premises were not proved to belong to the accused, and mere presence at the spot was held insufficient to establish liability. The alleged liquor was also not proved by acceptable scientific evidence, as the bottles were not sent for chemical analysis and the report was not duly proved. The acquittal was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>