https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307149 Charges under Section 52(f) of the Army Act were specific enough where they stated that the accused countersigned contingent bills and obtained advances for unauthorized vehicle modifications despite knowing the regiment was not entitled to the grants. The evidence showed withdrawals for purported purchases, but no purchases were made and the funds were not used for the stated purpose, establishing intent to defraud. The two limbs of Section 52(f) are disjunctive, so it was unnecessary to plead wrongful gain or wrongful loss separately. The accused had full notice, participated in the proceedings, suffered no prejudice, and the Division Bench was not justified in disturbing concurrent findings supported by evidence. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Mar 2023 15:10:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307149 Charges under Section 52(f) of the Army Act were specific enough where they stated that the accused countersigned contingent bills and obtained advances for unauthorized vehicle modifications despite knowing the regiment was not entitled to the grants. The evidence showed withdrawals for purported purchases, but no purchases were made and the funds were not used for the stated purpose, establishing intent to defraud. The two limbs of Section 52(f) are disjunctive, so it was unnecessary to plead wrongful gain or wrongful loss separately. The accused had full notice, participated in the proceedings, suffered no prejudice, and the Division Bench was not justified in disturbing concurrent findings supported by evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307149