Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 786 (1.00 seconds)

Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953

recording their confessions on 31st August and the confessions were in fact recorded on 1st September 1952. Both of them retracted their confessions ... complied with In recording a confession, the confession would become inadmissible. The admissibility of the confession was attacked also on other grounds. Mr. Justice Bennett
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953

recording their confessions on 31st August and the confessions were in fact recorded on 1st September 1852. Both of them retracted their confessions ... complied with in recording a confession, the confession would become inadmissible. The admissibility of the confession was attacked also on other grounds. Mr. Justice Bennett
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emperor vs Maruti Santu More on 22 July, 1919

relating to confessions. Section 25 renders any proof of a confession made to a Police Officer inadmissible Section 26 provides that no confession made ... confession if the confession is a matter required by law to be reduced to writing. This brings me to the provisions of Section 164 which
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Atmaram Namdeo vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 April, 1968

powers duly invested in him to record statements or confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the Magistrate did not have ... Criminal Procedure, would have the necessary jurisdiction to record confession under Section 164 . It is not apparently disputed in this case that the District Magistrate
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next