Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)
Girwar Singh vs . Anil Sharma 1/9 on 17 April, 2013 cites

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008

It is settled preposition of law that the guilt of accused must be proved Girwar Singh Vs. Anil Sharma 8/9 beyond reasonable doubt and reliance has been placed by this court on the judgments of Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amit Chand Payrelal [( 1999 ) 3 SCC 35]and of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G.Hegde(2008)4 SCC54 wherein it was held that "Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies".
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999

It is settled preposition of law that the guilt of accused must be proved Girwar Singh Vs. Anil Sharma 8/9 beyond reasonable doubt and reliance has been placed by this court on the judgments of Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amit Chand Payrelal [( 1999 ) 3 SCC 35]and of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G.Hegde(2008)4 SCC54 wherein it was held that "Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies".
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1948 - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

Accused has also admitted his signature on the cheque in question in notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C. Reference has been made to Judgment of Apex Court in Rangappa vs Sri Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898 that, "Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be established by the accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstances. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. In other words, the defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the Court. The defence raised by the accused was that a blank signed cheques were lost by her, which was made use of by the complainant. The accused had failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption placed on him by Section 139 of the Act".
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next