https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193277 Section 35(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was treated as a public-welfare regulatory provision requiring trustees to keep trust money in prescribed investments or deposits, and the provision was characterised as creating strict or absolute liability; mens rea was not an essential ingredient. On the evidence, no material showed that accused 2 to 10 were trustees at the relevant time or that they knew of or ated in the withdrawals, so the case against them failed. As to accused 1, the prosecution did not prove that the money came from trust funds, the alleged letter was not proved according to law, and the statement under section 342 CrPC, read as a whole, did not establish guilt. en-us Mon, 12 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:36:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193277 Section 35(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was treated as a public-welfare regulatory provision requiring trustees to keep trust money in prescribed investments or deposits, and the provision was characterised as creating strict or absolute liability; mens rea was not an essential ingredient. On the evidence, no material showed that accused 2 to 10 were trustees at the relevant time or that they knew of or ated in the withdrawals, so the case against them failed. As to accused 1, the prosecution did not prove that the money came from trust funds, the alleged letter was not proved according to law, and the statement under section 342 CrPC, read as a whole, did not establish guilt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193277