1|Page ANSHUL RAMESH

BURDEN OF PROOF

Gavate v State of Maharashtra [AIR 1977 SC 183]

• The matter relates to four groups of lands, which were sought to be acquired under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
• The authorities wanted to acquire them, but the standard procedure was that there was an
enquiry to be conducted. The exception was when it is needed for a public purpose on an
urgent basis, which in this case was for residential and industrial purposes.
• The very statement of the public purposes for which the land was to be acquired indicated
the absence of such urgency, on the apparent facts of the case, as to require the elimination
of an enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
• The apex Court held that that instead of prolonging litigation by appealing to this court, the
state government should have ordered expeditious enquiries under Section 5A of Land
Acquisition Act or act under Section17 (4) of the Act, asking them to show cause why no
enquiry under Section 5A of the Act should have taken place at all.
• The Court held that there is no force in either the appeal by the owners of land or in those
preferred by the State of Maharashtra.
• It has been held that the question whether an onus probandi has been discharged is one of
fact.
• The total effect of evidence is determined at the end of a proceeding not merely by
considering the general duties imposed by Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act but
also the special or particular ones imposed by other provisions such as Sections 103 and
106 of the Evidence Act.
• As per Sections 101 and 102, the onus is on the petitioner to substantiate the grounds of
his challenge.
• The petitioner has to either lead evidence or show that some evidence has come from the
side of the respondents to indicate that his challenge to a notification or order is made good.
• The original or stable onus laid down by Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act cannot
be shifted by the use of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, although the particular onus of
proving facts and circumstances lying especially within the knowledge of the official who
2|Page ANSHUL RAMESH

formed the opinion which resulted in the notification under the impugned Section rests
upon that official.

Shambhu Nath Mehra v State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404]

• Appellant S.N. Mehra, a camp clerk in the office of the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs
had been convicted of offences under Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and
Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty.
• Section 106 cannot be used to undermine the well-established rule of law that, save in
a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts.
• Section 106 is an exception to the general rule enshrined in Section 101 and is designed to
meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate
disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are “especially”
within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or
inconvenience.
• The word “especially” stresses that it refers to the facts that are pre-eminently or
exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused.
• The appellant has been put upon this trial, the prosecution has had ample opportunity to
prove its case and it can certainly not complain of want of time to search for and prepare
its savor of harassment to allow the continuance of such a trial without the slightest
indication that there is additional evidence available which could not have been discovered
and produced with the exercise of diligence at the earlier stages.
• The Apex Court restored the order of the Session Court acquitting the appellant.

Amba Lal v Union of India [AIR 1961 SC 264]

• Though the appellant purchased the said smuggled good he argued that he is not concerned
with importation of the goods contrary to the prohibition or restriction imposed by or under
Chapter IV of the Sea Customs Act.
• Items 1-5 were claimed to be bought from Pakistan after partition. With respect to these 5
items, there was no evidence adduced.
3|Page ANSHUL RAMESH

• Since there is no evidence, Section 106 cannot be used by the State to avoid discharging
the Burden of proof. The principle underlying Section 106 of the Evidence Act is of
universal application. If Section 106 of the Evidence Act is applied, then by analogy, the
fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence must equally be invoked. If so, it follows
that the onus to prove the case against the appellant is on the prosecution.
• Items 6 to 10 were originally claimed to be purchased in Barmer and later admitted being
illegally smuggled from Pakistan.
• With respect to these items, the accused’s statement is valid and hence these goods can be
confiscated.
• The findings of the case is that appellant with the knowledge that the goods had been
smuggled into India kept the goods and therefore he was liable to penalty under that section.

Collector of Customs, Madras v D. Bhoormal [AIR 1974 SC 859]

• Some information was received that some packages containing smuggled goods had been
left by a person in the premises of M/s. Rikhabdas and that these packages were about to
dispatched to Bangalore for disposal. D. Bhoormal had asked one of the staff of Rikhabdas
to keep the goods in their shop until his return.
• The reading of section 167 (8) of Sea Customs Act, goods found to be smuggled can, be
confiscated without proceeding against any person and without ascertaining who is their
real owner or who was actually concerned in their illicit import.
• But it cannot be disputed that in proceeding for imposing penalties under clause (8) of
Section 167 the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled goods, is on the Department.
• The department would be deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much
evidence, circumstantial or direct, as if sufficient to raise a presumption in its favor with
regard to the existence of the facts sought to be proved.
• Proof doesn’t mean absolute certainty. All it means is that the proof be established to
such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe the existence
of the fact in issue.
• Efficiency and weight of evidence is to be considered according to the proof which it was
in the power of one side to prove and in the power of the other to have contradicted.
4|Page ANSHUL RAMESH

knowledge specifically in the knowledge of the respondent is not the primary burden of the
prosecution to prove.
• The circumstantial evidence suggests that the inference that the goods were illicitly
imported into India, and was similar and reasonably pointed towards the conclusion drawn
by the Collector.
• Collector had given the fullest opportunity to Bhoormal to establish the alleged acquisition
of the goods in the normal course of business.
• The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and revered the judgment by
agreeing with the order of Collector Customs.