https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99075 In a prosecution for default in filing a statement of affairs, absence of reasonable excuse was treated as an ingredient of the offence, not a matter for automatic proof by the accused. Because the statute contained no express reverse burden or statutory presumption, the ordinary criminal rule applied and the prosecution had to prove the default and the lack of reasonable excuse in the first instance. Section 106 of the Evidence Act did not shift the legal burden, though an evidentiary burden could arise for the accused once relevant facts were proved. The burden therefore initially remained on the prosecution. en-us Fri, 18 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Oct 2025 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99075 In a prosecution for default in filing a statement of affairs, absence of reasonable excuse was treated as an ingredient of the offence, not a matter for automatic proof by the accused. Because the statute contained no express reverse burden or statutory presumption, the ordinary criminal rule applied and the prosecution had to prove the default and the lack of reasonable excuse in the first instance. Section 106 of the Evidence Act did not shift the legal burden, though an evidentiary burden could arise for the accused once relevant facts were proved. The burden therefore initially remained on the prosecution. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99075