<?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>1979 (1) TMI 250 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311927</link>
    <description>A conviction for criminal misappropriation cannot stand on an involuntary or unreliable confession, and the Court found the confession here unsafe because it was obtained in circumstances suggesting compulsion and was denied as voluntary. Its value was further reduced by references to other items on which the accused had already been acquitted. The remaining evidence did not conclusively prove dishonest appropriation: the complainant&#039;s delay affected credibility, the attendance register entry was not decisive, and the receipt and work at the accused&#039;s house supported an alternative explanation. The prosecution therefore failed to prove false drawing and misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (1) TMI 250 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311927</link>
      <description>A conviction for criminal misappropriation cannot stand on an involuntary or unreliable confession, and the Court found the confession here unsafe because it was obtained in circumstances suggesting compulsion and was denied as voluntary. Its value was further reduced by references to other items on which the accused had already been acquitted. The remaining evidence did not conclusively prove dishonest appropriation: the complainant&#039;s delay affected credibility, the attendance register entry was not decisive, and the receipt and work at the accused&#039;s house supported an alternative explanation. The prosecution therefore failed to prove false drawing and misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>