https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293017 Prosecution under Rule 132 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 failed because the evidence did not reliably prove that the respondent possessed small coins beyond his personal or business requirements. The record was uncertain on the total amount seized, part of the coins was not produced, and the seizure list did not clearly segregate denominations. As rupee coins were not covered by the prohibition, the prosecution had to prove the exact extent of objectionable small coins before any burden could shift to the accused. On that evidentiary footing, the essential ingredients of the offence were not established and the acquittal was upheld. en-us Thu, 20 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293017 Prosecution under Rule 132 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 failed because the evidence did not reliably prove that the respondent possessed small coins beyond his personal or business requirements. The record was uncertain on the total amount seized, part of the coins was not produced, and the seizure list did not clearly segregate denominations. As rupee coins were not covered by the prohibition, the prosecution had to prove the exact extent of objectionable small coins before any burden could shift to the accused. On that evidentiary footing, the essential ingredients of the offence were not established and the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293017