<?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>2003 (11) TMI 642 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302177</link>
    <description>Conviction under Sections 409, 467 and 471 IPC and the corresponding Prevention of Corruption Act charges could not be sustained because the evidence did not prove that the appellants forged the withdrawal vouchers, knowingly used forged documents as genuine, or acted in conspiracy. Their conduct as Sub-Post Masters amounted at most to negligent clearance of vouchers, and negligence or lack of due care was insufficient for criminal liability without proof of dishonest intent or mens rea. As the core IPC offences were not established, the corruption charge based on the same alleged dishonest conduct also failed. The convictions were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 May 2022 11:54:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 642 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302177</link>
      <description>Conviction under Sections 409, 467 and 471 IPC and the corresponding Prevention of Corruption Act charges could not be sustained because the evidence did not prove that the appellants forged the withdrawal vouchers, knowingly used forged documents as genuine, or acted in conspiracy. Their conduct as Sub-Post Masters amounted at most to negligent clearance of vouchers, and negligence or lack of due care was insufficient for criminal liability without proof of dishonest intent or mens rea. As the core IPC offences were not established, the corruption charge based on the same alleged dishonest conduct also failed. The convictions were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>