<?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>2002 (4) TMI 994 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302993</link>
    <description>Delay in filing an appeal against acquittal may be condoned on sufficient cause shown under a justice-oriented approach, especially where the record indicates a bona fide intention to appeal and no disqualifying negligence. Applying that standard, the delay was condoned. In considering leave to appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and interfere only if the trial court&#039;s view is perverse or no other view is possible. As the acquittal rested on rejected interested testimony, absence of public witnesses, and material inconsistencies, no perversity was shown and leave to appeal was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:56:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 994 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302993</link>
      <description>Delay in filing an appeal against acquittal may be condoned on sufficient cause shown under a justice-oriented approach, especially where the record indicates a bona fide intention to appeal and no disqualifying negligence. Applying that standard, the delay was condoned. In considering leave to appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and interfere only if the trial court&#039;s view is perverse or no other view is possible. As the acquittal rested on rejected interested testimony, absence of public witnesses, and material inconsistencies, no perversity was shown and leave to appeal was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>