https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299637 Cognizance for forgery, cheating and misappropriation under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 IPC could not be sustained where the case diary did not support the prosecution's allegation that the Income Tax Department had seized the 42 departmental files in question. Without proof of such seizure, the foundational factual basis for the alleged offences was absent, and the cognizance order was set aside for those IPC offences. The challenge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not examined on merits because it was not pressed at that stage. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Dec 2021 08:45:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299637 Cognizance for forgery, cheating and misappropriation under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 IPC could not be sustained where the case diary did not support the prosecution's allegation that the Income Tax Department had seized the 42 departmental files in question. Without proof of such seizure, the foundational factual basis for the alleged offences was absent, and the cognizance order was set aside for those IPC offences. The challenge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not examined on merits because it was not pressed at that stage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299637