Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20387 (7.50 seconds)
Documents citing M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006

Johnson Scaria vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2006

This to me is what the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court in Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala said when their Lordships observed that the accused has no burden to disprove the case of the complainant. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act cannot help the court to presume that the cheque was drawn, ie., written, signed and delivered by the accused. It can only help the Court to presume that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforcible debt or liability. I find no difficulty in accepting that proposition, but certainly the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act as also the evidence of the complainant as P.W.1 and the admitted stand taken by the accused will all have to be considered to decide whether the cheque was drawn and issued for payment. That burden has also been satisfactorily discharged by the complainant in this case.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 55 - R Basant - Full Document

Sri.G.S.Guruprasad vs Sri.Chandrashekar on 10 August, 2021

29. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment reported in M.S.Narayana Menon v State of Kerala that the evidence adduced by the complainant can be relied upon to rebut the presumption of consideration. However, said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case as the Trial Court has found that the presumption is not rebutted but still the Trial Court dismissed the complaint for the reasons that the appellant has failed to prove the amount mentioned in the cheque as due amount. Once the cheque is proved to be issued it carries statutory presumption of consideration. Then the onus is on the respondent to disprove the presumption at which the respondent as miserably failed.
Bangalore District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.Krishna Reddy vs P.V.R.S.Mani Kumar on 9 March, 2010

49. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused would cull out some portion of the citation referred to above and submit that non-filing of the income tax returns is fatal and he further submits that the onus on the accused is not as heavy as that of the prosecution and it may be compared with the defence in the civil proceedings. The above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - R Mala - Full Document

M/S Baboo Ram Hari Chand vs Radhey Shyam Gupta Cc No. 1151/10 1 on 19 April, 2011

20. It is now trite that if two views are possible, the appellant court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible to be taken. The appellate courts jurisdiction to interfere is limited. [See M.S. Narayana Menon (supra) and Mahadeo Laxman Sarane & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (7) SCALE 137] The High Court furthermore has not met the reasons of the learned Trial Judge. It proceeded on the premise that the appellant had not been able to discharge his burden of proof in terms of Section 139 of the Act without posing unto itself a further question as to how the said burden of proof can be discharged. It furthermore did not take into consideration the legal principle that the standard of proof upon a prosecution and upon an accused is different. "
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Ajit Datta vs Smt. Swapna Roy Choudhury on 23 April, 2025

16. This Court in M.S. Narayana Menon case: M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39 held that what is needed is to raise a probable defence, for which it is not necessary for the accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence and even the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant can be relied upon. Dealing with standard of proof, the following was observed in para 32:
Tripura High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next