Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-11-2015
..... degree and character of proof which the accused is required to adduce for rebutting the presumption under section 4 of the prevention of corruption act, 1947, cannot be equated with the burden resting on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, a near plausibility of his explanation under section ..... specific performance of the respective sale agreements. the said sale agreements were not cancelled by a.2 sasikala. to his knowledge there was no extension of time for the performance of the above agreements. the amounts received as advance under the said sale agreements were not refunded to the ..... or otherwise and after giving an opportunity to the opposite party to contest the correctness of such evidence by cross examination. [ilr 1963  punjab 28]. disproportionate means out of proportion, lack of proportion or equality relatingly too large or small; lack of balance or equality; failure to be ..... means of such knowledge about the facts deposed by him, his testimony would not be evidence under any principle of law. [1969  punjab law reports 68]. the evidence of the contents contained in the document is hearsay evidence unless the writer thereof is examined before the court. an ..... place of occurrence: madras and other places (a) direction and distance from p.s: south east about 3 kms. beat no: does not arise. (b) address: no.36, poes garden, madras- 600 086. (c) in case outside limit of this police station, then the name of p.s: nil 6. complainant/informant: (a .....Tag this Judgment!