Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)
Titled As "Hiten P Dalal vs . Bratindranath Banerjee 2001(3) C.C. ... on 1 April, 2008 cites

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

The more authoritative view has been laid down in the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in Dhanvantraj Balwantraj Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575, where this Court reiterated the principle enunciated in State of Madras Vs. Vaidyanath Iyer(Supra) and clarified that the distinction between the two kinds of presumption lay not only in the mandate to the Court but also in the nature of evidence required to rebut the two. In the case of a discretionary presumption the presumption if drawn may be rebutted by an explanation which "might reasonably be true and which is consistent with the innocence" of the accused. On the other hand in the case of mandatory presumption "the burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised U/s 14 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 provisions 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 before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man 7 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   2 Next