Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.33 seconds)
M/S Religare Finvest Ltd. ... ... vs . on 8 August, 2011 cites

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

The standard of proof is not pari­materia with the complainant. The standard of proof for the accused to demolish the complainant case and to show preponderance of probabilities in his favour. He has only to prove that the consideration does not exist or the non­existence of the consideration is so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G.Hegde AIR 2008 SC 1325 observed that:­ "Para no. 23. An accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records. An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different................................ Para no. 25. 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...................... Para no. 34. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said provision has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India. This, however, shall not mean that the courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same." Thus, it is now well established that the accused can prove the non­existence of any debt or any other liability by raising a probable defence or by demolishing or discrediting the case of the complainant in cross­examination of witness adduced by the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next