TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court restores acquittal in fraud case, citing burden of proof and insufficient evidence</h1> <h3>SHAMBU NATH MEHRA Versus STATE OF AJMER</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the order for retrial and restored the acquittal by the Sessions Judge on charges under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ... - Issues:1. Conviction under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. Appeal against acquittal and remand for retrial before a Special Judge.3. Questions about burden of proof and sanction in the case.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant was convicted of offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for obtaining sums from the government as Traveling Allowance (T.A.) for journeys he allegedly did not pay the fare for. He appealed to the Sessions Judge and was acquitted, but the State appealed against the acquittal, leading to a retrial before a Special Judge due to legal amendments. The issue revolved around the alleged fraudulent obtaining of T.A. for two journeys.2. The appeal raised questions about the burden of proof and sanction in the case. The charge assumed the appellant traveled on the relevant dates, and the evidence did not support the claim that he did not travel. The prosecution relied on the absence of second-class tickets being issued on those dates but failed to prove that the appellant did not pay the fare through other means like paying on the train or buying alternative class tickets.3. The judgment delved into the burden of proof, emphasizing that the burden lies on the prosecution in criminal cases. The court highlighted that the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person rests on that individual. The court rejected the contention that the burden of proving fare payment lay on the appellant based on an illustration to the Evidence Act, stressing that the prosecution failed to diligently establish crucial facts within its reach. The court ultimately set aside the order for retrial, citing lack of substantial evidence and potential harassment to the appellant, and restored the acquittal by the Sessions Judge on both counts.This detailed analysis covers the issues of conviction, appeal against acquittal, burden of proof, and sanction addressed in the legal judgment delivered by the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
