Karnataka High Court
Smt Sahira Banu vs Lynal Pinto on 25 September, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 1818 (KAR.), 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 832 (KAR.) 2009 (3) AIR KAR R 406, 2009 (3) AIR KAR R 406
the bank and got the same eneashed. Despite this he has presented the cheque in question for being the entire cost of'I'\f set which isgaucgee aaeinave: e x supplied by him to the accused.
12. 011 careful reading of jzhe ggxdwents * it is seen that mm the eephe%eap:§¢ngte Ceurt; proceeded te examine the :aee_Se__ féif accused on the assumption that theiaeeueefl"v:?.é§eV_'te':'Ve.peeve:hef ease beyond reasonable doubt. C.01§:;1ee?.Wi'er the petitionm-_ accused -evil" t:h_.e.._c?:eeision of the ¥~Ion'b1e Apex 4' Jarzarahan Bhat 9.
Dauatrwa a.;;:egae fe;j.er:ed::.%"e»'m me 2003 svpxem comer {.325 = Apex Court observed at para 23 e+3 ULI'1der:--»._ "
A for disehajmg the burden of _ prciewf upon him under a statute need not examin.eg_himse1f. He may discharge his burden en basis of the materials airwdy brought on reeerd. An accused has a constitutional right to siience. Standard of proof on the part of 3:1 accused and that of the prosecution in a V' ms: is difiemnt."
T