Burden of Proof

Good question Mr. Future Lawyer.

It is me considered view that just denying the notice averments in reply by accused will not  shift the burden of proof on to the complainant. Accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. It is not the complaint onus to prove the same, it is purely onus lies on the accused.

Whereas in similar question of law has held by hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Frgrant Leasing and Finance Company Ltd V/s Jagdish Katuria and another, 2007, 1236 ALL SC

Criminal Appeal No.5944/2004 decided on 04-06-2007.

I think now you have got clear case.

Regards

very rightly expressed by Mr. Basavaraj R. .... mere denial of the debt or liability will not shift the burden of proof on the Complainant ...... Accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.

I do not agree with learned friends. see....

1- Only saying that there exist legally enforceable debt not sufficient in the eye of law. The contention must be along with some documentary evidence. look into   AIR2008SC278

2-If cheque issued by way of security than it does not attract criminal liability under section 138 of NI Act. See AIR 2008 SC 2407  so if  this plausible fact shown by accused then burden shift on complainant that the cheque was issued against legal enfo.. debt.

3- On presumption an milestone rulling of Apex court is : AIR 2006 SC 3366. It is on the accused only to discharge initial burden. if he does so than charge cast upon complainant to prove his whole story.

see also very important ruling AIR 2008 SC 1325, AIR 2009 SC 1518 

WANT SOME MORE THAN CALL ME AT +91 9414400250

Yes Mr Soni the burden of proof is on complainant  just existance of cheque is not sufficient. There can be hundred and on alibies for the cheque such as stolen , filled later on etc etc.

tHANK YOU VERY MUCH DEAR BASAVARAJ & SONI sirs for your different opinion.

But in my case almost all basavaraj sirs judgment is matching, however SONI sir your judgment also matching but comapre to basavraj judgment not enough. What transcation held in Frgrant Leasing and Finance Company Ltd V/s Jagdish Katuria and another, 2007, 1236 ALL SC, the same transcation has happend to me hence it is matching.

Dear Soni sir I am not denying your post, I like your post but in between who is this "WE FOR YOU", these pepole are using this fourm for their personal use and advertsiment. You tell me sir you have given good judgment for me thank you, then why should these "WE FOR YOU". He could have posted some different judgment rarter than crticising some one. I already tole this "WE FOR YOU" they are not legal person.

Mr.SKJ, thank for your advise. Ofcourse yor may be senior, u may advise lots of thinks to juniors, but my brian would work fast compare to your seniorty. Please you also stop posting unwanted things. You see your recent therads. Most of the members how they reacted on your post. Please aviod to advise to others. 

Dear future lawyer,

hiiii, 

Thanks for compliments. If you r not fully served your query then plz send the brief facts of the case so i may help you more efficiently. 

regards.

Dear Soni Sir, I'm really gratfully to you and your truthfull advise. Sir as a Law student I m requestign you to that we need pepole like you who provide turthness advise in our profession.

Lawyersclub provided us such a good platforum to share our expretsie, we should not try to advise in wrong way like some people "WE FOR YOU" & "SKJ-ADVOCATE".

Sir I know that still i am claiming law stpes it does not mean that I do not know anything. That Gental Man "SKJ-ADVOCATE" said that "you are still future lawyer y ou dont know anything stop posting"

Sir you tell me junior means what first of all he does not know how to sepak with juionrs.

Sir I personally ask you conduct of SKJ-ADVOCATE is not good, tell me sir if i am worng, serioseley I will try to correct my mistkas.

Please give your advise sir who is right. 

Dear Basavaraj sir & Soni sir thanks for your advise and also sorry for late thanks.

Dear future lawyer,

Affection!!!

Reply to your july 1st post..

It's not time for you to compare you with others. You should keep in mind your target. Study well! Don,t bother overwhelming absurd things.

bye! take care!!

RAVIKANT SONI ADVOCATE

Always at service of persons like you.

SONI SIR

THANK U  

THANK U

 THANK U

I need people like u, u r the person here me to given boost for my life. You are the person for me to open my eys sir. I take  ur advise and move forward.

But sir I need your support in future also, please do not assitate me to provide any legal information, please sir,

Thank you

M.SINGH. 

WHAT U HAVE ADVISED TO FUTURE LAWYER TO APPLICABLE TO ME ALSO.

IF YOU DON'T MIND I WILL ALSO SEEK YOUR KNOWLDGABLE.

I SAW YOUR POSTINGS HERE THATS IS VERY GOOD.

ALSO YOU HAVE GIVEN STRENTH TO THAT FUTURE LAWYER. WE NEED LIKE YOU PERSON AS GOD FATHER

Lawyer Ganesh Malur,

My pleasure if i can serve you!!!!!!!!

HI, Greetings to all,

With regard to the above quiry, various view expresses for and against the quiry  I would like to draw attention of all friends to the recent ruling of the Apex court in Rangappa vs Sri Mohan  delivereed on 7 May, 2010 by the three judge bench comprising their lordships : J Panchal, P Sathasivam, K Balakrishnan holding that "the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be correct" So the ruling of KJBhat case is over ruled.