https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307584 The article explains that procedural irregularities and non-compliance with the General Financial Rules were not enough by themselves to prove cheating, forgery, conspiracy, or corruption offences. The decisive issue was whether the prosecution had established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the bills, summaries, and muster rolls were false and that the work expenditure was limited to the figures alleged. Evidence based on impressions, later recollection, incomplete receipts, and soundings taken years apart was treated as too unsafe to displace the prosecution's burden. Suspicion, however strong, could not substitute for proof, and the accused were not required to prove innocence or additional expenditure. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:54:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307584 The article explains that procedural irregularities and non-compliance with the General Financial Rules were not enough by themselves to prove cheating, forgery, conspiracy, or corruption offences. The decisive issue was whether the prosecution had established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the bills, summaries, and muster rolls were false and that the work expenditure was limited to the figures alleged. Evidence based on impressions, later recollection, incomplete receipts, and soundings taken years apart was treated as too unsafe to displace the prosecution's burden. Suspicion, however strong, could not substitute for proof, and the accused were not required to prove innocence or additional expenditure. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307584