cheque

jayanta kalita (Querist) 12 October 2009 This query is : Resolved
Please help me to get the following problems solved.... (1)Whether an accused person charged with u/s 138 NI Act is to prove his innonce by adducing evidence beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence which principle is applicable in criminal cases? Please refer Supreme Court Judgement. (2)Suppose if a vehicle is purchased under higher purchase agreement that vehicle can not be transfered till repayement of loan amount, but by executing an agreement the vehicle is given to other person for use. Now if an offence is committed in connection with this vehicle the person who has taken the vehicle in his possession by executing the agreement is also liable as per clause inserted in the agreement( They inserted such a clause). While the said agreement has no legal value under civil law, it bears value in criminal law. Because in criminal law FACTS CAN NOT BE DENIED. M I correct? If correct is there any Supreme Court judgement that FACTS CAN NOT BE DENIED in criminal case?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 12 October 2009
In the cases punishable under section 138 NI Act, the accused has to prove himself innocent by adducing convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the concerned court and not preponderance of evidence which generally is available in criminal matters covered generally under IPC/Cr. P.C.

So far second quarry is concerned, you have already admitted that the contract is ab-initio illegal in all sense but in fixing criminal liability, it shall definitely be a conclusive evidence by way of written agreement that at the relevant time of offense, the vehicle was in the possession of the alleged user. The terms of the agreement also support this contention.

Sachin Bhatia (Expert) 12 October 2009
1)Under section 138 NI Act, The Burden of Proof is on accused to prove himself innocent by producing convincing evidence before the court.

2) As you said the agreement is not legal it shall definitely be a conclusive evidence in your case.

PJANARDHANA REDDY (Expert) 12 October 2009
MR.RAJ & SACHIN EXPLAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT OF LAW TO YOUR THREAD.MORE OVER YOUR QUESTION ITSELF CONSISTS 90% ANSWER. I HOPE YOU ARE A PERFECT LAW MAN,BUT NOT LAYMAN.

Jithendra.H.J (Expert) 12 October 2009
The complainant has to prove the legally enforceable debt, then only the presumption will be drawn in favour of the complainant, then only the burden will be shifted to the accused