Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Mohemad Hanif Abdulsatar Teliya vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2024 cites

Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2017

[6.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present petition and stated that the present petitioner is the guardian of juvenile. The juvenile has committed the offence though fully aware of that the petitioner has given key of the car to the juvenile, which was driven by the minor in rash and negligent manner and due to this, an innocent person has lost his life. Considering the aforesaid fact, prima facie involvement being there and as recording of evidence is in progress, he has requested to dismiss the present petition as at the time of deciding the proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC, Court should not weigh the evidence and cannot look into the defence raised by the accused. Further, the Court has only to consider as to whether only prima facie offence is made out or not. It is also submitted that even settlement is not a ground to quash the proceedings and that too concerning non-compoundable offence. Insofar as submission as Page 5 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:54:05 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16418/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2024 undefined regards issue of presumption is concerned, learned APP has submitted that once presumption is provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden is on the accused to rebut the same. The concerned Investigating Officer has filed a detailed affidavit and opposed the present petition mainly on the ground that, present offence is non-compoundable and material witnesses including Medical Officer and panch witnesses have been examined in Sessions Case and the statements of witnesses disclose the role of the present petitioner and considering the provision of section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court shall have to draw the presumption. Merely based on the settlement and accused settled the dispute with the original complainant is not a ground to quash the proceeding in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641. In view of the above, he has requested to dismiss the present petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 7651 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022

Even, the said provision is inserted with a view to achieve remedial measures to promote the general welfare for bringing social reforms to avoid road accident through minors. The said provisions have been made with a view to make the parents answerable. Hence, the said provision is also required to be interpreted in the true letter and spirit. The scope of statutory presumption is discussed in context of section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act and explained the word "shall presume" by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029, wherein the 5 Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussing various provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiabe Instruments Act and section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has observed and held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 160 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008

47. Similarly in a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted vide Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 ("Kumar Exports"). Further, the question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not must, therefore, be determined keeping in view the other evidence on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 3169 - J M Panchal - Full Document

The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957

In State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61 ("A. Vaidyanatha Iyer"), it was observed that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act which is similar to Section 20 of the Act under consideration would Page 15 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:54:05 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16418/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2024 undefined arise where illegal gratification has been accepted, then the presumption introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused. The legislature has used the words "shall presume" and not "may presume" which means that the presumption has to be raised as it is a presumption of law and therefore it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption. Further, the presumptions of law constitute a branch of jurisprudence unlike a case of presumption of fact which is discretionary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 853 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 September, 1962

50. Distinguishing a presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act with a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it was observed in Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1964 SC 575 ("Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai") that a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is discretionary in nature inasmuch as it is open to the court to draw or not to draw a presumption as to the existence of one fact from the proof of another fact. This is unlike a presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act or Section 20 of the Act where the court has to draw such presumption, if a certain fact is proved, that is, where any illegal gratification has been received by an accused. In such a case the presumption that has to be drawn that the person received that thing as a motive of reward. Therefore, the court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to the accused to show that though that money was not due to him as a legal remuneration it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which is lawful. The burden resting on the accused in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words "unless the contrary is proved" which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by "proof" and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material brought before it, the Court finds its Page 16 of 19 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:54:05 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/16418/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2024 undefined existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 438 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1