<?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>1976 (11) TMI 205 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193818</link>
    <description>In an election petition alleging corrupt practice, the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt because the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. The SC held that alleged printing and publication of a defamatory leaflet and a newspaper special number were not established against the returned candidate, as there was no reliable direct or documentary evidence and the requirements of Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were not satisfactorily shown. It also held that alleged distribution in the constituency was not proved, since the oral testimony was partisan, inconsistent, and uncorroborated by dependable circumstances or documents. The election challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 205 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193818</link>
      <description>In an election petition alleging corrupt practice, the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt because the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. The SC held that alleged printing and publication of a defamatory leaflet and a newspaper special number were not established against the returned candidate, as there was no reliable direct or documentary evidence and the requirements of Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were not satisfactorily shown. It also held that alleged distribution in the constituency was not proved, since the oral testimony was partisan, inconsistent, and uncorroborated by dependable circumstances or documents. The election challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>