https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287518 A conviction for cheating requires proof of dishonest inducement or knowing participation in the fraudulent representation; a mere clerical role, without evidence of representation, inducement, or knowledge of the inflated invoices and hundies, is insufficient, and the fourth accused was therefore acquitted. The Court upheld the cheating convictions of the second and third accused, but held that sentencing could not be based on a bargain for repayment; even so, mitigating circumstances justified reduction of the custodial term, while the fines were maintained. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:06:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287518 A conviction for cheating requires proof of dishonest inducement or knowing participation in the fraudulent representation; a mere clerical role, without evidence of representation, inducement, or knowledge of the inflated invoices and hundies, is insufficient, and the fourth accused was therefore acquitted. The Court upheld the cheating convictions of the second and third accused, but held that sentencing could not be based on a bargain for repayment; even so, mitigating circumstances justified reduction of the custodial term, while the fines were maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287518