Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.61 seconds)

B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that both the complainant and P.W.2/accompanying witness turned hostile to the prosecution case and also stated that the amount was thrust into the pocket of the appellant. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the aspect of demand since P.W.1 has disowned the complaint and the contents of complaint Ex.P9 were not proved. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 denied any kind of demand by the appellant, as such, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of; i) B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P in Criminal Appeal No.696 of 2014;
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 511 - R Gogoi - Full Document

T. Shankar Prasad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 January, 2004

He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P4 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that presumption under Section 20 of the 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 3 Appeal (Crl.)719 of 1995, dated 12.12.2000 4 (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 753 9 Act is a legal presumption. However, the said presumption is rebuttal by proof and not by mere explanation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 96 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1