https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766558 Convictions for criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen property could not stand where the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized gold bars were the same property involved in the alleged fraudulent transactions. The Court noted that, once this foundational identity of the property was not established, surrounding circumstances such as alleged failure to explain possession, resistance during search, and statutory presumptions could not complete the chain of proof or cure the defect in the prosecution case. Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to shift the burden on to the accused, and the essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC remained unproved. The appellant was held entitled to the seized gold bars. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:23:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766558 Convictions for criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen property could not stand where the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seized gold bars were the same property involved in the alleged fraudulent transactions. The Court noted that, once this foundational identity of the property was not established, surrounding circumstances such as alleged failure to explain possession, resistance during search, and statutory presumptions could not complete the chain of proof or cure the defect in the prosecution case. Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to shift the burden on to the accused, and the essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC remained unproved. The appellant was held entitled to the seized gold bars. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766558