<?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>1986 (12) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42465</link>
    <description>Acquittal cannot be reversed on accomplice evidence unless the testimony is reliable and corroborated in material particulars; hostile or retracted statements and slender circumstantial material such as recovered cash, documents, telephone numbers, and diary entries were found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was maintained. Section 138B of the Customs Act was treated as a procedural provision capable of retrospective operation, so statements recorded before Customs officers remained admissible despite the offence predating the provision&#039;s introduction, but that procedural applicability did not cure the prosecution&#039;s evidentiary deficiencies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:54:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (12) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42465</link>
      <description>Acquittal cannot be reversed on accomplice evidence unless the testimony is reliable and corroborated in material particulars; hostile or retracted statements and slender circumstantial material such as recovered cash, documents, telephone numbers, and diary entries were found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was maintained. Section 138B of the Customs Act was treated as a procedural provision capable of retrospective operation, so statements recorded before Customs officers remained admissible despite the offence predating the provision&#039;s introduction, but that procedural applicability did not cure the prosecution&#039;s evidentiary deficiencies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>