<?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>1959 (5) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283816</link>
    <description>Entrustment of property to a public servant and its unexplained disappearance can establish dishonest misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The court found that the appellant received the consignment, removed it from the railway depot, and failed to account for the goods after they never reached the intended organisation. His shifting and false explanations were rejected, and the surrounding facts supported an inference of guilty intent. Exact proof of the manner of disposal was not required where receipt, duty to account, failure to do so, and false explanations together proved dishonest misappropriation. The conviction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:53:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (5) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283816</link>
      <description>Entrustment of property to a public servant and its unexplained disappearance can establish dishonest misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The court found that the appellant received the consignment, removed it from the railway depot, and failed to account for the goods after they never reached the intended organisation. His shifting and false explanations were rejected, and the surrounding facts supported an inference of guilty intent. Exact proof of the manner of disposal was not required where receipt, duty to account, failure to do so, and false explanations together proved dishonest misappropriation. The conviction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>