Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 54 (0.81 seconds)Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Police Act, 1888
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957
The more authoritative view has been laid
down in the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in
Dhanvantrai Balwantrai 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 a mandatory
8 of 36
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2022 18:45:06 :::
CRA-AS-25-2022 9
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 under S.114 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 provision 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 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......"
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227,
the Privy Council observed as under: (IA p. 404) "...
the High Court should and will always give proper
weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the
views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the
witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by
the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the
right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4)
the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witnesses."