Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.32 seconds)
Cc No:3214/13 Smt. Jyoti Kalra vs Satinder Kumar Verma on 20 December, 2013 cites

Madholal Sindhu vs Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 17 September, 1955

60.I have already noted in the preceding paras the settled legal position that Sections 118 and 139 NII Act introduce an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shift the onus on to the accused. If the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who would be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact. However, as the accused miserably failed to rebut the said presumtions, the onus never shifted upon the Complainant in the present case to prove the debt/liability or to prove the agreement Exh. CW1/A. The CC NO:3214/13 Smt. Jyoti Kalra vs Satinder Kumar Verma 28 decisions in AIR 1928 PC 38, AIR 1965 Ori 126 and (1965) 2 Cr.LJ 107 (supra), Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1954) 56 BOMLR 147 (supra) and Dattatraya Vs. Rangnath Gopal Rao Kawathekar AIR 1971 SC 2548 (supra) relied upon by the accused would have been applicable only when the onus would have shited to the Complainant. That not being the case, the ratio of the above authorities also has no application to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Dattatraya vs Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (Dead) By ... on 28 January, 1971

60.I have already noted in the preceding paras the settled legal position that Sections 118 and 139 NII Act introduce an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shift the onus on to the accused. If the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who would be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact. However, as the accused miserably failed to rebut the said presumtions, the onus never shifted upon the Complainant in the present case to prove the debt/liability or to prove the agreement Exh. CW1/A. The CC NO:3214/13 Smt. Jyoti Kalra vs Satinder Kumar Verma 28 decisions in AIR 1928 PC 38, AIR 1965 Ori 126 and (1965) 2 Cr.LJ 107 (supra), Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1954) 56 BOMLR 147 (supra) and Dattatraya Vs. Rangnath Gopal Rao Kawathekar AIR 1971 SC 2548 (supra) relied upon by the accused would have been applicable only when the onus would have shited to the Complainant. That not being the case, the ratio of the above authorities also has no application to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Sanjay Cotton Co. vs Omprakash Shioprakash And Anr. on 25 August, 1972

61.Finally, there can be no dispute about the legal postion laid down in Sanjay Cotton Co. Vs. Omprakash Shivprakash AIR 1973 Bom. 40 (supra) that consent by a party to exhibit a document does not amount to an admission of its content and a party has a right by cross examination to show that the document is not genuine. The said decision, however, does not aid the accused as he failed to assail the genuineness of the agreement Exh. CW1/A the Complainant stood her ground despite being cross examined at length on behalf of the accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

M/S M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. & ... on 19 November, 2001

50.After referring to both the above decisions, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd 2002 SCC (Cri) 121 that there was therefore no requirement that the Complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability was on the accused, which he had to discharge in the trial(emphasis supplied).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 617 - S N Variava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next