Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.54 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I La;Amo vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998
For the
purpose of reaching one conclusion the court can rely on a
factual presumption. Unless the presumption is disproved or
dispelled or rebutted, the court can treat the presumption
as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of
prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use
that presumption to draw yet another discretionary
presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion. This
Court has indicated so in Suresh Budharmal Kalani vs. State
of Maharashtra [1998 (7) SCC 337]. A presumption can be
drawn only from facts - and not from other presumptions by
a process of probable and logical reasoning. Illustration
Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 February, 1979
Learned counsel then relied on another decision of a
two judge bench of this court in Suraj Mal vs. State (Delhi
Administration) {1979 (2) SCC 725} wherein the bench
observed that in our opinion, mere recovery of money
divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is
not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive
evidence in the case is not reliable. In that case also the
said finding depended upon the veracity of the testimony of
the witnesses. But the contention raised by the learned
counsel in this case on the point convassed by him cannot
find any support from the said decision either.