SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(SC) 181

N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO
M. G. Agarwal: M. K. Kulkarni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.R.CHARI, FRENNY PAREKH, J.B.DADACHAN, Jai Gopal Sethi, K.R.CHAUDHARY, O.C.MATHUR, R.H.Dhebar, R.L.MEHTA, Ravindra Narayan

Judgement Key Points

What is the extent of the High Court’s powers under Section 423 CrPC to review and overturn acquittals in an appeal? What is the appropriate standard for convicting an accused on circumstantial evidence in a criminal conspiracy case, and whether the evidence suffices to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt? What are the duties and responsibilities of an Income-tax Officer in issuing refunds (ordinary and 18-A) and whether negligence or conspiracy can be inferred from failure to properly examine supporting documents?

What is the extent of the High Court’s powers under Section 423 CrPC to review and overturn acquittals in an appeal?

What is the appropriate standard for convicting an accused on circumstantial evidence in a criminal conspiracy case, and whether the evidence suffices to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

What are the duties and responsibilities of an Income-tax Officer in issuing refunds (ordinary and 18-A) and whether negligence or conspiracy can be inferred from failure to properly examine supporting documents?


Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: A criminal conspiracy to which according to the prosecution. M. G. Agarwal, M. K. Kulkarni and N. Laxminarayan hereafter called accused Nos. 1,. 2 and 3 respectively, were parties between December, 1954 and June, 1955 at Bombay has given rise to the criminal proceedings from which the two present appeals arise. At the relevant time, the three accused persons were attached to the office of the Income-tax Officer, Ward No. A-III in Greater Bombay. Accused No. 1 was designated as the First Income-tax Officer, and accused Nos. 2 and 3 worked under him as second and third Assessment Clerks respectively. The main charge against these persons was that during the relevant period, they had entered into a criminal conspiracy by agreeing to do or use to be done illegal acts by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing their position as public servants to obtain for themselves pecuniary advantage in the form of income-tax refund orders and this criminal object was achieved by issuing the said refund orders in the names of persons who either did not exist or were not assessees entitled to such refunds. The prosecution case was that after the said refund orders were th



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top