<?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>1991 (4) TMI 468 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314036</link>
    <description>Criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC requires proof of entrustment together with dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or use in violation of the governing directions; on the facts, that ingredient was not established because the questioned amounts had been deposited before the CID inquiry and the forgery-based charges had already been set aside, so the conviction was unsustainable. Liability could not be fastened on the second appellant for bills and transactions prepared before he assumed charge, because the record did not show conspiracy, pre-concert, common design, or his participation in any dishonest act; he was therefore not liable under Section 409.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 468 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314036</link>
      <description>Criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC requires proof of entrustment together with dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or use in violation of the governing directions; on the facts, that ingredient was not established because the questioned amounts had been deposited before the CID inquiry and the forgery-based charges had already been set aside, so the conviction was unsustainable. Liability could not be fastened on the second appellant for bills and transactions prepared before he assumed charge, because the record did not show conspiracy, pre-concert, common design, or his participation in any dishonest act; he was therefore not liable under Section 409.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>