<?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>1993 (2) TMI 345 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311409</link>
    <description>Corporate funds diverted through a sham commercial route without any lawful business purpose can amount to criminal breach of trust when they remain under a director&#039;s dominion, even if the money is not personally retained. The Court upheld conviction under Section 406 IPC for accused No. 1 because the documentary trail showed an unsupported false explanation and an impermissible collateral use of company money. By contrast, an employee who merely signed a cheque and approved a voucher in the ordinary course of duty was not shown to have guilty knowledge or conscious participation in a conspiracy, so accused No. 2&#039;s acquittal was confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:13:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 345 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311409</link>
      <description>Corporate funds diverted through a sham commercial route without any lawful business purpose can amount to criminal breach of trust when they remain under a director&#039;s dominion, even if the money is not personally retained. The Court upheld conviction under Section 406 IPC for accused No. 1 because the documentary trail showed an unsupported false explanation and an impermissible collateral use of company money. By contrast, an employee who merely signed a cheque and approved a voucher in the ordinary course of duty was not shown to have guilty knowledge or conscious participation in a conspiracy, so accused No. 2&#039;s acquittal was confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>