N Criminal Appeal No 379 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1371984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl
Appeal No 82 DB of 1984
RL Kohli and RC Kohli for the Appellant
412 RS Suri for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
One may ask the question whether murder by poisoning is not run like any other murder The learned counsel for the appellant purports to state that it is not
He relies upon the judicial prescriptions as to the burden of proof in poison murder cases
He contends that the prosecution must prove that the accused had the poison in his possession
He asserts that failure to establish that factor should entail the acquittal of the accused
This is a vital question which goes far beyond the case and it therefore requires careful consideration
Bhupinder Singh Appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife by poisoning
He was sentenced for life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge Faridkot in Session Case No 86 of 1983
His conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in criminal appeal No 82 DB of 1984
He has preferred this appeal by special leave challenging the conviction and sentence
We may first advert to the prosecution case
It reveals a sad story
It runs like this Gian Kaur the victim in this case is the only daughter of Baltej Singh
Baltej Singh like many other parents thought that his problems would be solved by the marriage of his daughter
He got her married to Bhupinder Singh by spending all his savings
His relatives also contributed for the marriage
But ill luck would have it his problems started immediately after the marriage
Bhupinder Singh and his parents wanted Gian Kaur to bring Rs 10000 from her father
It was nothing but a demand for dowry
They stopped up their demand with harassment to Gian Kaur
Gian Kaur informed her father
The father could not arrange that much of amount
He had already spent all that he had in connection with her marriage
He had also then given presents in cash and kind to Bhupinder Singh
So he felt helpless
Unmerciful Bhupinder Singh asked his wife to go back to her parents  house
So she left to seek shelter with her parents
She remained with them for about eight months
But how long the father could keep his married daughter away from her husband
Some parents think that it is a reflection upon them
Baltej Singh also must have thought like that
He somehow arranged Rs6000 and sent Gian Kaur to her husband s house
Gian Kaur rejoined her husband upon making the payment of Rs6000
That appears to have satisfied Bhupinder Singh for about 413 one year
In the meantime Gian Kaur had a male child
Naturally there was jubilation for Baltej Singh
He performed the customary Chuchhak ceremony and again gave Rs4000 and a buffalo as presents to Bhupinder Singh
Bhupinder Singh ought to have been happy and satisfied
But he was not
It was alleged by the prosecution that this time he demanded a motorcycle
Baltej Singh could not give it
Gian Kaur as usual was again the target
It was further alleged by the prosecution that Bhupinder Singh threatened to kill his wife if motorcycle was not given to him
Gian Kaur had kept her father informed about the said demand and the threat
On July 13 1983 Gian Kaur died under mysterious circumstances
Upon receiving that information Baltej Singh with his brother Baldev Singh reached the place in the evening of that day
They saw Gian Kaur lying dead on a charpai
They suspected foul play
Baltej Singh gave the information to the police narrating all the above events
He informed the police that his daughter was killed by Bhupinder Singh and his parents by administering something to her
On the basis of that information the FIR was issued
The investigation of the case was taken by ASI PW 4
The body of Gian Kaur was sent to Dr Sant Prakash Singh PW 6 for post mortem
The Doctor Prakash Singh noticed five minor injuries on the body of the deceased
The brain and other vital organs were also found to be congested
The Doctor sent stomach contents portions of small intestine liver spleen and kidney to the chemical examiner for the purpose of analysis
The chemical examiner in his report dated September 14 1983 has stated that an Organo phosphorus compound was found in the substance sent to him for analysis
The investigating officer sent that report for opinion of the Doctor Prakash Singh as to the cause of death of Gian Kaur
The Doctor gave his opinion that the death of Gian Kaur was due to organo phosphorus compound poisoning
Bhupinder Singh his father Sher Singh and his mother Mukhtiar Kaur were tried for committing the murder of Gian kaur by administering poison
The prosecution examined six witnesses and the accused in turn examined one
The trial court after considering the evidence and other material on record held as follows The accused had strong motive to get rid of Gian Kaur
Apparently motive for the murder was the inability of Gian Kaur 414 to satisfy the demand for dowry
The death of Gian Kaur was not accidental or suicidal
There was no reason for her to commit suicide
It was also not a death by food poisoning since the accused and deceased shared common food on the fateful night
There was none else in the house on that night except Gian Kaur and the accused
The accused had an opportunity to accomplish their design
The accused must have administered the poison to the victim
The injuries found on the body of the deceased indicated the resistence she must have offered when the poison was administered to her
With these and other conclusions the trial court finally said In the background of the circumstances and evidence discussed above the only conclusion possible is that Bhupinder Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur did administer poison organo phosphorus compound to Gian Kaur and did cause her death with common intention which was to get rid of her as she had not been able to persuade his father to meet their demand for motorcycle so as to clear way for another marriage of Bhupinder Singh in his youthful years in order to get more and more of dowry Accordingly the trial court found all the three accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC They were sentenced to imprisonment for life
Challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence the accused appealed to the High Court
It was urged before the High Court that the death of Gian Kaur was not homicidal
She must have in all probability committed suicide since she was suffering from tuberculosis
It was also urged that the prosecution has failed to establish by evidence the necessary conditions for the proof of murder by poisoning
The High Court did not agree with those contentions
The High Court ruled out the theory of suicide
It was observed that there was no evidence to show that Gian Kaur was suffering from tuberculosis or ever treated for that disease
The High Court observed Case of murder by poisoning is always one of secrecy
Almost in every such case one has to depend on circumstances
Doubtless before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established 415 and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt
If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis
But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibility has no place
What has to be considered are ordinary human probabilities
We have already referred to some important circumstances which in our opinion point out to the guilt of Bhupinder Singh and Sher Singh appellants
In the well known case of Anant Chantman Lagu vs The State of Bombay  their Lordships held that in a cause of poisoning the prosecution must establish a that the death took place by poisoning b that the accused had the poison in his possession and c that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased
All the three requirements are satisfied in this case
There is no dispute that the death of the deceased was caused by poisoning
It has been established by the chemical examiner s report that the viscera contained organo phosphorus compound poison
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has established that the aforesaid two appellants had the opportunity to administer poison to the deceased and that they had the motive to commit the crime
Their running away from the house at the time when the Investigating Officer visited their house is also consistent with their guilt and not with their innocence
 With these observations the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on Sher Singh and Bhupinder Singh while acquitting Mukhtiar Kaur
The present appeal is only by Bhupinder Singh
Before embarking on the validity of the main submission made in this appeal we may first dispose of one other contention urged for the appellant
Mr RN Kohli learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not enough for the chemical examiner merely to state in his report that the organo phosphorus compound was present in the substance sent to him for examination
He should have also stated that a lethal dose of the organo phosphorus compound was detected in the substance sent to him
His report should be full and complete to take the place of evidence which he would have given if he were called to Court as witness
In the absence of such particulars the death by 416 poisoning cannot be inferred
In support of this contention learned counsel relied upon two decisions of the Allahabad High Court viz i Mt Gajrani and Anr
vs Emperor AIR 1933 Allahabad 394 and ii State vs Fateh Bahadur  Ors AIR 1958 Allahabad 1
In the first case it was observed that it was not enough for the chemical examiner merely to state his opinion
He must also state the grounds which formed the basis of his opinion
The second case was a case of death by arsenic poisoning
The chemical examiner did not state the quantity of arsenic poison found in the viscera of the deceased
He did not state whether it was a fatal dose or not
The High Court pointed out that it would be of the utmost importance before a Court could find any individual guilty of murder by arsenic poison that its complete analysis should be made
It is not enough to state that arsenic was detected in the body of the deceased
In our opinion these observations cannot be taken as a rigid statement of law
No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the value to be attached to the report of the chemical examiner
Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the report ofscientific experts may be used as evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceedings of the court
The chemical examiner does not as a rule give an opinion as to the cause of death but merely gives report of the chemical examination of the substance sent to him
The report by itself is not crucial
It is a piece of evidence
The only protection to it is that it does not require any formal proof
It is however open to the Court if it thinks fit to call the chemical examiner and examine him as to the subject matter of the report
The report should normally be forwarded to the Doctor who conducted the autopsy
In the instant case that was done
The Doctor who conducted the autopsy was given a copy of the report of the chemical examiner
The Doctor in the light of the report gave his opinion that the death of Gian Kaur was by poisoning ie organo phosphorus compound
The report of the chemical examiner coupled with the opinion of the Doctor is therefore sufficient to hold that it was a death by poisoning
This takes us to the main contention urged for the appellant
It was urged that in a case of murder by poison there are three main points to be proved firstly did the deceased die of the poison in question secondly had the accused got the poison in question in his or her possession and thirdly had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased
It was also urged that if the prosecution fails to prove these factors then the accused cannot be convicted
The evidence in the case according to learned counsel falls 417 short of these requirements and in particular as to the question of proof of possession of the poison with the accused and therefore the accused is entitled to acquittal
We have been referred to some decisions of this Court in support of the contention urged
We have also examined some other cases bearing on the question raised
A brief survey of these cases would be useful to appreciate the contention urged for the appellant
There are two unreported decisions of this Court of the year 1958
The first one is in Chandra Kant Myalchand Seth s case Criminal Appeal No 120 of 1957 decided on 1921958
There a woman died of alkali cyanide
The husband of the deceased was tried and convicted by the trial court for the offence of murder
The conviction was set aside by this Court
In the course of the judgment it was observed Before a person can be convicted of murder by poisoning it is necessary to prove that the death of the deceased was caused by poison that the poison in question was in possession of the accused and that poison was administered by the accused to the deceased The acquittal however was based on the consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case
It was found that there was a greater motive to the deceased to commit suicide than to the accused to commit murder
This Court also took note of the concern and conduct of the accused when he found his wife lying unconscious
The accused ran to the house of his friend and returned with a Doctor to render assistance to the victim
The accused called another Doctor for the same purpose
He was also found weeping all the while
Taking into consideration of all these factors this Court found no justification to sustain the conviction of the accused
Dharambir Singh vs State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No 98 of 1958 decided on 4111958 is another case of homicidal action by cyanide poisoning
It was perhaps in this case the guidelines as to the proof of certain facts in poison murder cases were laid down by this Court
It was observed Where the evidence is circumstantial the fact that the accused had motive to cause death of the deceased though relevant is not enough to dispense with the proof of certain facts which are essential to be proved in such cases namely firstly did the deceased die of poison in 418 question secondly had the accused the poison in his possession and thirdly had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased It is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be able to draw the inference that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death
 After laying down these principles the court considered the entire evidence on record which indicated the likelihood of the deceased committing suicide or another person to have administered the poison to the deceased
This Court accordingly acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt
If one prefers to go yet further back we find a decision of the Allahabad High Court which is exactly on the principles laid down in Dharambir Singh case
In Mt Gajrani vs Emperor AIR 1933 All
394 Benett J speaking for the Court observed at p 394 In a case of murder by poison there are three main points to be proved firstly did the deceased die of the poison in question secondly had the accused got the poison in question in his or her possession and thirdly had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased
If these three points are proved a presumption may under certain circumstances be drawn by the Court that the accused did administer poison to the deceased and did cause the death of the deceased
It is not usual that reliable direct evidence is available to prove that the accused did actually administer poison to the deceased
The evidence of motive which is frequently given in these cases is of subsidiary importance and the mere fact that the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased is not a fact which will dispense with the proof of the second and third points that the accused had the poison in his or her possession and that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison
 The above proposition found its way into Mohan vs State of Uttar Pradesh  and Ram Gopal vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656
In Mohan s case the death in question was by arsenic poisoning
In that case the prosecution was able to prove that the accused gave peras  to the victim as pershad  and the victim 419 died after eating the pershad  Pershad  contained arsenic
There was thus direct evidence as to the possession of the poison with the accused
This Court therefore had no difficulty to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused
Ram Gopal s case was concerned with homicidal action by administering a compound called kerosene and orango choloro compound
The High Court relying upon the motive and other circumstantial evidence convicted the accused for the offence of murder although there was no evidence that the accused was in possession of poison
This Court could not agree with the view taken by the High Court
The analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution revealed that the motive alleged against the accused was not fully established
The incriminating circumstantial evidence against the accused was also found to be insufficient
So the conviction of the accused was set aside and the acquittal was recorded
Sharda E Chand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra  is yet another case of death by cyanide poisoning for which the husband of the deceased was tried for murder
There was no direct evidence to establish that the accused was in possession of that poison
The High Court however relied upon the circumstantial evidence and convicted the accused
In the appeal preferred by the accused this Court did not agree with the reasoning of the High Court
After referring to Ram Gopal s case
Fazal Ali J focussed the attention on the following four factors The learned Judge observed at p167 So far as this matter is concerned in such cases the court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction 1 there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased 2 that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered 3 that the accused had the poison in his possession 4 that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased
 420 The learned Judge went on to state In the instant case while two ingredients have been proved but two have not
In the first place it has no doubt been proved that Manju died of potassium cyanide and secondly it has also been proved that there was an opportunity to administer the poison
It has however not been proved by any evidence that the appellant had the poison in his possession
On the other hand as indicated above there is clear evidence of PW 2 that potassium cyanide could have been available to Manju from the plastic factory of her mother but there is no evidence to show that the accused could have procured potassium cyanide from any available source
We might here extract a most unintelligible and extra ordinary finding of the High Court It is true that there is no direct evidence on these two points because the prosecution is not able to lead evidence that the accused had secured potassium cyanide poison from a particular source
Similarly there is no direct evidence to prove that he had administered poison to Manju
However it is not necessary to prove each and every fact by a direct evidence
Circumstantial evidence can be a basis for proving this fact
 The comment by the high Court appears to be frightfully vague and absolutely unintelligible
While holding in the clearest possible terms that there is no evidence in this case to show that the appellant was in possession of poison the High Court observes that this fact may prove either by direct or indirect circumstantial evidence
But it fails to indicate the nature of the circumstantial or indirect evidence to show that the appellant was in possession of poison
If the Court seems to suggest that merely because the appellant had the opportunity to administer poison had the same was found in the body of the deceased it should be presumed that the appellant was in possession of poison then it has committed a serious and gross error of law and has blatantly violated the principles laid down by this Court
The High Court has not indicated as to what was the basis for coming to a finding that the accused could have procured the cyanide
On the other hand in view of the 421 decision in Ram Gopal s case failure to prove possession of the cyanide poison with the accused by itself would result in failure of the prosecution to prove its case This Court then went into the merits of the prosecution case
It was observed that the deceased was of sensitive mind
She had occasionally suffered mental depression due to her inability to adjust herself to her husband s family
It was also observed that the deceased had access to the poison in question
She could have secured the poison from the factory of her mother
Considering these and other circumstances it was held that it might be a case of suicide or murder and both were equally probable
So the accused was given the benefit of doubt and he was acquitted
From the foregoing cases it will be seen that in poison murder cases the accused was not acquitted solely on the failure of the prosecution to establish one or the other requirement which this Court has laid down in Dharambir Singh case
We do not also find any case where the accused was acquitted solely on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had the poison in his possession
The accused in all the said cases came to be acquitted by taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances including insufficient motive weakness in the chain of circumstantial evidence and likelihood of the deceased committing suicide
We do not consider that there should be acquittal on the failure of the prosecution to prove the possession of poison with the accused
Murder by poison is invariably committed under the cover and cloak of secrecy
Nobody will administer poison to another in the presence of others
The person who administers poison to another in secrecy will not keep a portion of it for the investigating officer to come and collect it
The person who commits such murder would naturally take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence against him
In such cases it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove possession of poison with the accused
The prosecution may however establish other circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
The court then would not be justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove possession of the poison with the accused
The poison murder cases are not to be put outside the rule of circumstantial evidence
There may be obvious very many facts and circumstances out of which the Court may be justified in drawing 422 permissible inference that the accused was in possession of the poison in question
There may be very many facts and circumstances proved against the accused which may call for tacit assumption of the factum of possession of poison with the accused
The insistence on proof of possession of poison with the accused invariably in every case is neither desirable nor practicable
It would mean to introduce an extraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning
We cannot therefore accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant
The accused in a case of murder by poisoning cannot have a better chance of being exempted from sanctions than in other kinds of murders
Murder by poisoning is run like any other murder
In cases where dependence is wholly on circumstantial evidence and direct evidence not being available the Court can legitimately draw from the circumstances an inference on any matter one way or the other
The view that we have taken gets support from the decision of this Court in Ananth Chintaman Laguy vs The State of Bombay  where Hidayatullah J has given an anxious consideration to the three propositions laid down in Dharambir Singh case
The learned Judge did not consider them as invariable criteria of proof to be established by the prosecution in every case of murder by poisoning
The learned Judge said at p 519 520 It is now necessary to consider the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant
The first contention is that the essential ingredients required to be proved in all cases of murder by poisoning were not proved by the prosecution in this case
Reference in this connection is made to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mt Gajrani vs Emperor
AIR 1933 All 394 and to two unreported decisions of this Court in Chandrakant N Nyalchand Seth vs The State of Bombay Criminal Appeal No 120 of 1957 decided on February 19 1958 and Dharambir Singh vs The State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No 98 of 1958 decided on 4111958
In these cases the Court referred to three propositions which the prosecution must establish in a case of poisoning a that death took place by poisoning b that the accused had the poison in his possession and c that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased
The case in Cr A No 98 of 1958 D 4111958 SC turned upon these three propositions
There the deceased had died as a result of poisoning by potassium cyanide which poison was also found in the 423 autopsy
The High Court had disbelieved the evidence which sought to establish that the accused had obtained potassium cyanide but held nevertheless that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused in that case
This Court did not however accept the circumstantial evidence as complete
It is to be observed that the three propositions were laid down not as the invariable criteria of proof by direct evidence in a case of murder by poisoning because evidently if after poisoning the victim
the accused destroyed all traces of the body the first proposition would be incapable of being proved except by circumstantial evidence
Similarly if the accused gave a victim something to eat and the victim died immediately on the ingestion of that food with symptoms of poisoning and poison in fact was found in the viscera the requirement of proving that the accused was possessed of the poison would follow from the circumstances that the accused gave the victim something to eat and need not be separately proved
 The learned Judge continued The cases of this Court which were decided proceeded upon their own facts and though the three propositions must be kept in mind always the sufficiency of the evidence direct or circumstantial to establish murder by poisoning will depend on the facts of each case
If the evidence in a particular case does not justify the inference that death is the result of poisoning because of the failure of the prosecution to prove the fact satisfactorily either directly or by circumstantial evidence then the benefit of the doubt will have to be given to the accused person
But if circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct proof of the three elements is so decisive that the Court can unhesitatingly hold that the death was a result of administration of poison though not detected and that the poison must have been administered by the accused person then the conviction can be rested on it So much for the principles for which the learned counsel for the appellant fought for
On the facts there is concurrence of opinion between the two courts below
This Court seldom re examines the findings of fact reached by the High Court
We may however out of 424 deference to the counsel briefly refer to the evidence
The prosecution has established the motive for the murder
The proof of motive goes a long way to tilt the scale against the accused which provides a foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances
The facts which hear on motive are distressing
After the marriage Gian Kaur was subjected to repeated harassment for not satisfying the demand for dowry made by Bhupinder Singh
Baltej Singh PW2 has stated that Bhupinder Singh asked Gian Kaur to bring Rs 10000
The parents of Bhupinder Singh were also parties to that demand
Baltej Singh with all difficulties satisfied that demand in part by payment of Rs6000
Bhupinder Singh thereafter demanded a motorcycle
When that was not immediately given Bhupinder Singh held out a threat to his wife that she would be killed
This was conveyed to Baltej Singh
Before he could take a decision in this regard he was shocked to receive the news of death of Gian Kaur
This has been proved by the testimony of Baltej Singh PW 2 and Nazir Singh PW 3
The demand for dowry followed by harassment to the deceased has been thus satisfactorily proved
The evidence of the Doctor and the report of the chemical examiner has established beyond doubt that Gian Kaur died of organo phosphorus compound poisoning
Bhupinder Singh had an opportunity to administer that poison
There was nobody else in the house
All the inmates had their common food in the night
All of them slept in the same place
Both the Courts have ruled out the theory of suicide by Gian Kaur
We entirely agree with that finding
She could not have thrown her child to the mercy of others by committing suicide and indeed no mother would venture to do that
The postmortem report giving the description of injuries found on the body of the deceased would also defy all doubts about the theory of suicide
She had contusion on the front of right leg
Abrasion on the front of the left leg just below the knee joint
Linear abrasion on the back of the right hand
Linear abrasion on the antro lateral aspect of left fore arm in its middle
And contusion on the back of right elbow joint
These injuries as the Courts below have observed could have been caused while Gian Kaur resisted the poison being administered to her
The behaviour of Bhupinder Singh in the early hours of that fateful day by going to his field as if nothing had happened to his wife is apparently inconsistent with the normal human behaviour
There was no attempt made by him or other inmates of the house to look out for any Doctor to give medical attention to the victim
The movement and disposition of Bhupinder Singh towards the victim and situations 425 are incompatible with his innocence
On the contrary it gives sustenance to his guilt
The Courts below having considered all these facts and circumstances had no difficulty to convict the accused for murder and we see no good reason to interfere with that conclusion
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed
RSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant advanced various sums of money to the res pondent in lieu of which the respondent passed a deposit receipt for 12 months from August 1 1939 to July 31 1940 On June 16 1944 the appellant filed a suit to recover the amount with interest on the allegation that the amount became due on May 17 1941 when the demand for the amount was made and limitation for the suit expired on May 17 1944 and the suit was filed on the reopening day of the Court thereafter
The appellant also relied upon the acknowledgments of his debt by the respondent in the resolu tion passed by the Board of Directors on May 2o 1941 and in the balance sheet of the respondent for the year 1940 41 dated October 10 1941  Held that the suit was barred by limitation as the monies due under the deposit receipt became payable on July 31 1941 and as no agreement had been proved that the monies due under the deposit receipt were re payable on demand
Held further that limitation was not saved by the alleged acknowledgments
The resolution of the Board of Directors merely proposed a settlement of a claim of the appellant which if accepted by the appellant was to be placed before a general meeting of the shareholders
The resolution only referred to a past liability of the respondent to the appellant and it could
not be construed as an 169 1332 acknowledgment of the liability of the respondent under the deposit receipt in question
A copy of the balance sheet of 1940 41 obtained from the Registrar of Companies which was filed in the case was wrongly rejected by the High Court as inadmissible on the ground that no evidence was adduced to prove it
This copy was admissible under section 3b of the Commercial Documents Evidence Act
Under that section the Court could also raise a presumption as regards the balance sheet having been duly made by or under the appropriate authority or in rggard to the statements contained therein
The presumption was not compulsory but was discretionary with the Court
In the circumstances of this case where there were factions in the Company and the regularity of the meeting at which the balance sheet was passed was in dispute the High Court would have been perfectly justified in not raising the presumption
Consequently the acknowledgment in the balance sheet was of no avail to the appellant