Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)
Shilpa Sharma vs Shri Om Prkash Mishra on 18 October, 2024 cites

Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019

18.The issue to be determined by this court is whether the cheque in question was given by the accused to the complainant against any 'Legal Debt or Other Liability'. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question at the stage of framing of notice and subsequently as well. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in Basilingappa (supra), once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption that the cheque in question was executed in discharge of a debt or other liability gets attracted by virtue of the mandate of Section 139, NI Act. Once the above stated presumption is raised, the onus shifts on the accused to raise a probable defence. The signatures of the accused are not disputed on the cheque in question in the present case. Based on the legal position mentioned, the burden lies on the accused to prove that the cheque in question had not been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Accused was at liberty to rebut these presumptions by way of cross examination of complainant and his MARILYN Digitally MARILYN signed by CC No. 2525/19 JOANNA JOANNA KHAKHA Page No. 11/20 Date: 2024.10.18 KHAKHA 14:44:16 +0530 witnesses or by leading substantive evidence in defence. It is required that such evidence must be brought in defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'. Presumption must be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 2275 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

25.In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010SCCOnlineSC583) and Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatreya G Hegde (2008(4)SCC54), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and their accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies. Accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence. In fact, it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce own evidence. Rebuttal can be done by cross examination of complainant and by showing contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of the complainant itself. Once rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and thereafter, the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 NI Act would not come to the aid of the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

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

25.In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010SCCOnlineSC583) and Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatreya G Hegde (2008(4)SCC54), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and their accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies. Accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence. In fact, it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce own evidence. Rebuttal can be done by cross examination of complainant and by showing contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of the complainant itself. Once rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and thereafter, the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 NI Act would not come to the aid of the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next