Leave granted for an appeal numbered under the Madras High Court judis system for admission. The applicant contends the trial court wrongly shifted the burden of proof under statutory presumptions despite defence evidence rebutting the presumption made during the petition.
Registry directed to number the appeal and list it for admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. O.P.No. 22051 of 2021 in Crl.A.SR.39335 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that during the course of evidence, the petition/complainant had stated that he had borrowed money from various persons including one Thangaraj. To rebut the presumption, the accused had examined one Thangaraj as a defense witness. However, the said Thangaraj during the crossexamination had specifically stated that the complainant had borrowed money from some other Thangaraj and not himself whereas the trial court had by wrongly shifting the burden of proof in violation of the statutory presumptions, had acquitted the respondent/accused.
2.Prima facie case has been made out for grant of leave. Leave is granted
15.12.2021
vri/shk
Note:
Registry is directed to number the appeal, if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis it is otherwise in order and list the same for admission.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to the appeal should be granted.
Whether the appeal is otherwise in order for numbering and listing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
COMPLAINANT
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
