Bandu v Naba "i 618 Oudh Nand Lal v Emperor (Qhulam Hasan J) A 1 1 In 88 ALL 5092 the plaintiff had obtained a whether the explanation given by the accused, decree for possession of certain immovable even though not believed in its entirety, is such as to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury property which she did not put into execu or Court as to the guilt of the accused The aeous- tion for over three years, but had obtained ac ed is not bound to prove affirmatively that he tual physical possession' over the property came by the incriminating goods innocently It is She was subsequently dispossessed and sufficient for him to give an explanation which may raise doubt in the mind of the Court as to his brought a suit for possession over the pro guilt Where the explanation given by the accused perty It was held that as she had been in is disbelieved by the Court it must be held that the actual possession of the property, a fresh accused had failed to satisfactorily account for the cause of action had accrued and her suit was possession of the articles in question and the pro secution is entitled to rely on the presumption maintainable being within 12 years of such under S 114, illus (a) that the accused is either dispossession a thief or a receiver of the stolen goods : ('33) 20 We hold therefore that the plaintiffs 2

AIR 1933 All 893

All India Reporter, Allahabad Series

India - Uttar Pradesh

Cases Referring to this Case

LawCite: Privacy | Disclaimers | Conditions of Use | Acknowledgements | Feedback