<?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>2004 (2) TMI 705 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194185</link>
    <description>Dishonest inducement and mens rea for cheating under Section 420 IPC may be inferred from contemporaneous documents and conduct. The Court upheld the conviction of Devender Kumar Singla because the receipt and surrounding circumstances supported deception, and the defence version was not put to the complainant in cross-examination. Mala Singla&#039;s acquittal was left undisturbed because the evidence did not establish her presence at the transaction or any direct role in the delivery of shares. The custodial sentence of Devender Kumar Singla was reduced as excessive in the circumstances, while the finding of guilt was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:17:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 705 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194185</link>
      <description>Dishonest inducement and mens rea for cheating under Section 420 IPC may be inferred from contemporaneous documents and conduct. The Court upheld the conviction of Devender Kumar Singla because the receipt and surrounding circumstances supported deception, and the defence version was not put to the complainant in cross-examination. Mala Singla&#039;s acquittal was left undisturbed because the evidence did not establish her presence at the transaction or any direct role in the delivery of shares. The custodial sentence of Devender Kumar Singla was reduced as excessive in the circumstances, while the finding of guilt was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>