<?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>2006 (5) TMI 557 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298548</link>
    <description>Entrustment of money to a postmaster for purchase of National Savings Certificates, followed by retention without applying it for the intended purpose, was treated as sufficient to establish criminal breach of trust; proof of the precise manner of personal misappropriation was not required once dishonest retention was shown. The discussion also notes that the Section 313 CrPC examination was adequate where the accused was confronted with the material evidence, admitted receipt and later deposit of the money with interest, and no prejudice from any omission was demonstrated. On that reasoning, the conviction was upheld and the High Court&#039;s contrary view on both issues was rejected, with sentence reduced in light of age and circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 10:14:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 557 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298548</link>
      <description>Entrustment of money to a postmaster for purchase of National Savings Certificates, followed by retention without applying it for the intended purpose, was treated as sufficient to establish criminal breach of trust; proof of the precise manner of personal misappropriation was not required once dishonest retention was shown. The discussion also notes that the Section 313 CrPC examination was adequate where the accused was confronted with the material evidence, admitted receipt and later deposit of the money with interest, and no prejudice from any omission was demonstrated. On that reasoning, the conviction was upheld and the High Court&#039;s contrary view on both issues was rejected, with sentence reduced in light of age and circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>