https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279141 The Supreme Court construed "wilfully detains or delays" in section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 to mean deliberate detention or delay, not mere negligence, inadvertence, or carelessness. Reading the provision with the Act's graded scheme of postal offences and the contrasting language used elsewhere, the majority held that "wilfully" required purposeful conduct, and the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged specific purpose, so the statutory ingredient was not made out. Raghubar Dayal, J. dissented, holding that the word required only intentional and deliberate conduct and did not call for proof of any further purpose; on that view, the conviction would stand. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279141 The Supreme Court construed "wilfully detains or delays" in section 53 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 to mean deliberate detention or delay, not mere negligence, inadvertence, or carelessness. Reading the provision with the Act's graded scheme of postal offences and the contrasting language used elsewhere, the majority held that "wilfully" required purposeful conduct, and the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged specific purpose, so the statutory ingredient was not made out. Raghubar Dayal, J. dissented, holding that the word required only intentional and deliberate conduct and did not call for proof of any further purpose; on that view, the conviction would stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279141