https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279014 Irrelevant and prejudicial material in a jury charge, including allegations of prior misconduct unrelated to the offences, could not be treated as substantive proof; a first information report had only limited evidentiary use. The misuse of that material amounted to serious misdirection and prejudiced the accused. On the substantive charges, the prosecution did not prove an attempt to cheat the Government: the evidence showed no direct link between the disputed interpolation and the claims made under the contract, and the conduct amounted at most to preparation. The connected forgery and use-of-forged-document charges therefore also failed, and the acquittal was upheld. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:43:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279014 Irrelevant and prejudicial material in a jury charge, including allegations of prior misconduct unrelated to the offences, could not be treated as substantive proof; a first information report had only limited evidentiary use. The misuse of that material amounted to serious misdirection and prejudiced the accused. On the substantive charges, the prosecution did not prove an attempt to cheat the Government: the evidence showed no direct link between the disputed interpolation and the claims made under the contract, and the conduct amounted at most to preparation. The connected forgery and use-of-forged-document charges therefore also failed, and the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279014