VEERASAMI v. UNION OF INDIA

3 SCC 655Reported decision1991#1056 most cited

What is VEERASAMI v. UNION OF INDIA authority for?

A charge-sheet need not contain a detailed analysis of evidence; the trial court forms its opinion on charges by considering the charge-sheet and all accompanying documents. The case also discusses the constitutional validity of placing the burden of proof on the accused, particularly in anti-corruption cases, in light of Article 21.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K. Veeraswami v. Union of India · charge-sheet requirements · evidence analysis · framing of charges · burden of proof on accused · Article 21 · Supreme Court Article 142 · 143(3) · 147 · 148 · 148A · 149.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 133ASection 150

Judgments citing VEERASAMI v. UNION OF INDIA

MOHIT CHANDAK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.191 & 194/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…ction of only dispute-settling. It is well recognised and established that this Court has always been a law-maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a "problem- solver in the nebulous areas" (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject-matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be ITA Nos.191 & 194/Chny/2025 Mohit Chandak :- 13 -: controlled by any statutory provisions but a…

MOHIT CHANDAK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.191 & 194/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…ction of only dispute-settling. It is well recognised and established that this Court has always been a law-maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a "problem- solver in the nebulous areas" (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject-matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be ITA Nos.191 & 194/Chny/2025 Mohit Chandak :- 13 -: controlled by any statutory provisions but a…

B T KANTHARAJ vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27680/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

NANJUNDAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/47827/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

THARIQ KHAN vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8585/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SMT JANAKI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/28215/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/6960/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SRI SHIVALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/6376/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SRI H K BASAVEGOWDA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/28214/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SMT. PRIYADARSHINI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/35277/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

MOOSAVEER @ IBRAHIM SAB vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/13029/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

N SANTHOSH KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/22667/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SRI C GOVARDHAN REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36459/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SRI RAJANNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/18646/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SMT. MOTAMMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/25219/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

K T THIPPERUDRAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/50828/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SRI A M NARAYANASWAMY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8210/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SRI M B DEVAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/18327/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

SMT UMA BALAGAVI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/23800/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

MR G PULLA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/56168/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…reventing of Corruption Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused in reasonable and not unjust, or unfair nor is to be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as propagated in VEERASAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1991) 3 SCC 655. 567 94. In STATE vs HAREMZA reported in 213 Kan.201 (Kan.1973) this Court has observed: "Statutory presumptions are ordinarily rebuttable. A rebuttable statutory presumption governs only the burden of going forward with the evidence and, even when it operates against the defendant, it does not alter the ultimate bu…

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6