https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459920 The SC held that handwriting evidence supporting the first appellant's alleged endorsement was unsafe because the witness's familiarity with the handwriting was not properly proved and the surrounding evidence was contradictory; his conviction was therefore set aside and he was acquitted. As to the second appellant, the proved facts showed false representation of entitlement to brokerage, concealment of the true transaction, and dishonest inducement of payment, satisfying cheating and supporting receipt of stolen property. The conviction was accordingly altered to cheating and receiving stolen property, while the conviction for falsification of accounts was set aside. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jan 2025 20:22:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459920 The SC held that handwriting evidence supporting the first appellant's alleged endorsement was unsafe because the witness's familiarity with the handwriting was not properly proved and the surrounding evidence was contradictory; his conviction was therefore set aside and he was acquitted. As to the second appellant, the proved facts showed false representation of entitlement to brokerage, concealment of the true transaction, and dishonest inducement of payment, satisfying cheating and supporting receipt of stolen property. The conviction was accordingly altered to cheating and receiving stolen property, while the conviction for falsification of accounts was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459920