<?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>1960 (11) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45719</link>
    <description>The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was responsible for posting currency notes in envelopes for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act. The evidence showed only suspicion: the addresses on the envelopes were not shown to be in the petitioner&#039;s handwriting, no clinching circumstance linked him to the posting, and the possibility that another person had sent the money was not excluded. Moral certainty could not substitute for legal proof, so the conviction could not be sustained and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal; the challenge to the acquittal on the same facts also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:55:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45719</link>
      <description>The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was responsible for posting currency notes in envelopes for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act. The evidence showed only suspicion: the addresses on the envelopes were not shown to be in the petitioner&#039;s handwriting, no clinching circumstance linked him to the posting, and the possibility that another person had sent the money was not excluded. Moral certainty could not substitute for legal proof, so the conviction could not be sustained and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal; the challenge to the acquittal on the same facts also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>