Reason to believe

No interpretation is possible in a vacuum. 

What are the facts? What is the context?

A person is said to have "reason to believe" a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.

It will depend on the facts of each case. The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds.

In evidence it is :Reason to believe means that the evidence available to that person, if presented to other individuals of similar background and training, would make those individuals think that the consumer has been abused or neglected.

The pharse" Reason to Believe" in a statute like NDPS or the PMLA is like a prophesy. Consider this, in a given case, investigation is going on, and there is no materials before the court except the bald statements in the complaint, what will assist the court to come to a reasonable conclusions for His "Reson to Believe," Even persumption under the evidence act is based on the act itself, and not a wild rhetoric, thus the said pharse "Reason to Believe," is disturbing to me.

When there are insufficient grounds as direct evidence and circumstances explain the incident/ happenings, the court may find / presume certain "reasons to believe" which differ from case to case.

Academic topic posted for time pass debate.