It is a site to share short notes on law for judicial exam in india. you can comment on any post, ask for judgment on any topic and free to ask any question related to judicial exam.
Sep 20, 2010
M S Narayana Menon Vs State of Kerala and Anr, AIR 2006 SC 3366
NI Act- sec 138- Cheque dishonored with the remarks "account closed"- dispute was what is the burden of accused to rebut the presumption- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The standard of proof evidently is pre-ponderance of probabilities. Inference of pre-ponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials on records but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. Presumption drawn under a statute has only an evidentiary value. Presumptions are raised in terms of the Evidence Act. Presumption drawn in respect of one fact may be an evidence even for the purpose of drawing presumption under another…. It is not in dispute that transactions comprising purchases and sales of shares by investors is a matter of confidence. Both parties would have to rely upon one another…. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of a case, the initial burden has been discharged by an accused would be a question of fact. It was matter relating to appreciation of evidence…. A presumption is a probable inference which common sense draws from circumstances usually occurring in such cases. The slightest presumption is of the nature of probability, and there are almost infinite shades from slight probability to the highest moral certainty. A presumption, strictly speaking, results from a previously known and ascertained connection between the presumed fact and the fact from which the inference is made…. The Appellant clearly said that nothing is due and the cheque was issued by way of security. The said defence has been accepted as probable. If the defence is acceptable as probable the cheque therefore cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of the debt as, for example, if a cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose the same would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Act….”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment