https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462378 In a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, suspicion, delay, or procedural irregularity cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The roof-compensation claim was not shown to be fraudulent or collusive with sufficient certainty, so the cheating and corruption-related convictions tied to that claim could not stand. By contrast, the jute-compensation claim was supported by documents and surrounding circumstances indicating deliberate inflation and a mutual arrangement to press an exaggerated claim, so the conspiracy conviction was sustained. The Court also treated the Section 342 CrPC objection as non-prejudicial in the circumstances. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part, with the roof-related convictions set aside and the conspiracy conviction maintained with modified sentences of fine only. en-us Fri, 23 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:43:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462378 In a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, suspicion, delay, or procedural irregularity cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The roof-compensation claim was not shown to be fraudulent or collusive with sufficient certainty, so the cheating and corruption-related convictions tied to that claim could not stand. By contrast, the jute-compensation claim was supported by documents and surrounding circumstances indicating deliberate inflation and a mutual arrangement to press an exaggerated claim, so the conspiracy conviction was sustained. The Court also treated the Section 342 CrPC objection as non-prejudicial in the circumstances. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part, with the roof-related convictions set aside and the conspiracy conviction maintained with modified sentences of fine only. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462378