<?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>The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of the conspiracy charge due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy beyond the acquitted co-accused. However, the court upheld the appellant&#039;s conviction for forgery, cheating, and personation based on the reliability of the evidence, particularly the handwriting expert&#039;s testimony. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the convictions and sentences except for the conspiracy charge, which was overturned.</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>The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of the conspiracy charge due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy beyond the acquitted co-accused. However, the court upheld the appellant&#039;s conviction for forgery, cheating, and personation based on the reliability of the evidence, particularly the handwriting expert&#039;s testimony. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the convictions and sentences except for the conspiracy charge, which was overturned.</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>