<?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>2012 (8) TMI 1230 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312890</link>
    <description>Entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are the essential ingredients for conviction under Section 409 IPC. On the evidence, the accused was responsible for distributing rice under a public welfare scheme, had to account for stock through coupons and vouchers, and failed to do so; the coupons produced were found to relate to another village, supporting diversion of government grain. The Court therefore sustained the conviction for criminal breach of trust. It also found no basis to interfere with the modest sentence, holding that leniency was unwarranted in view of the misappropriation of foodgrain meant for beneficiaries and the public interest in proper distribution of essential commodities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:16:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 1230 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312890</link>
      <description>Entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are the essential ingredients for conviction under Section 409 IPC. On the evidence, the accused was responsible for distributing rice under a public welfare scheme, had to account for stock through coupons and vouchers, and failed to do so; the coupons produced were found to relate to another village, supporting diversion of government grain. The Court therefore sustained the conviction for criminal breach of trust. It also found no basis to interfere with the modest sentence, holding that leniency was unwarranted in view of the misappropriation of foodgrain meant for beneficiaries and the public interest in proper distribution of essential commodities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>