Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.44 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 167 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kanungo & Company vs Collector Of Customs And Ors. on 7 February, 1972
Kanungo and Co. v. Collector of Customs
(Calcutta) (2); (d) The Order of the Collector
did not suffer from any apparent error or
defect of jurisdiction. His order was based
on an appraisement of the circumstantial
evidence before him and was consistent with
the rules of natural justice. He had given
the fullest opportunity,to the Respondent to
put forth his case and had issued two show-
cause notices to him through his Solicitors.
The Division Bench of the High Court
exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 was not
competent to go into the question of the
adequacy of that evidence, and act as if it
was a court of appeal.
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 3 in Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Shambu Nath Mehra vs The State Of Ajmer on 12 March, 1956
Quoting from
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer,(1) the Court said that
s. 106. Evidence Act "cannot be used to undermine the well
established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional
class of cases, the burden is on the prosecution and never
,sifts." It was added
"If S. 106 of the Evidence Act is applied, then, by analogy,
the fundamental principles of criminal jurisdrudence must
equally be invoked".