In a recent judgment, Addl. C.M.M., Economic Offences Court-I, Egmore, Chennai, dealing in Company Law violation under the Companies Act, 1956 has said that the burden of proof lies only on the accused to disprove the allegations and not on the prosecution to prove unlike under penal laws or any other special act, is it correct?
Gundlapallis (Advocate) 03 April 2010
If that principle is to be accepted any Tom Dick and Harry can accuse anybody and this accused anybody should stand in court to prove himself he is innocent.... In India, the existence of Tom, Dick and Harry's are more than abundance to create complete choas of judicial confusion if the said court's view is to be accepted. The observation is against the principles of law.
K.C.Suresh (Advocate) 03 April 2010
The present indian legal jurisprudance insist burden on prosecution. In Special Acts there are presumptions which shifted the burden to accused. Even in that case also the basic responsibility of the prosecution is not watering. It has the duty to prove the foundation. But afetr LAKSHMAN REKHA the accused has to take the sword to disprove what the prosecution alleges.
Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil) 03 April 2010
Mr. KC sursh is right. It is called doctrine of strict liability, where burden of proof lies on accused .
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
