<?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>1966 (12) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279762</link>
    <description>A conspiracy conviction cannot stand where the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted and there is no independent proof of agreement with another person; the conviction under Section 120-B IPC was therefore set aside. Handwriting evidence is opinion evidence: expert opinion under Section 45, familiar-witness testimony under Section 47, and court comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act are all relevant but not conclusive. On the proved comparison material, the disputed writings were safely attributed to the appellant, who had impersonated fictitious persons to obtain permits; the convictions for forgery, cheating and personation were upheld and the concurrent sentences remained in force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:14:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (12) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279762</link>
      <description>A conspiracy conviction cannot stand where the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted and there is no independent proof of agreement with another person; the conviction under Section 120-B IPC was therefore set aside. Handwriting evidence is opinion evidence: expert opinion under Section 45, familiar-witness testimony under Section 47, and court comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act are all relevant but not conclusive. On the proved comparison material, the disputed writings were safely attributed to the appellant, who had impersonated fictitious persons to obtain permits; the convictions for forgery, cheating and personation were upheld and the concurrent sentences remained in force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>