Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
21. The accused is not supposed to prove his defence 'beyond reasonable doubt'
under the law and if any economic law shifts the burden on the accused to
rebut any presumption, the extent of onus to be discharged by him has been
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Hiten P. Dalal Vs
Bratindranath Banerjee cited as 2001 (6) SCC 16 in para 20 as follows:
".....Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively
established but such evidence must be adduced before the
court in support of the defence that the Court must either
believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be
reasonably probable, the standard or reasonability being that
of the 'prudent man'."
1