Apex Court in Harishchandra v. State of Bihar , 1964 Cri.L.J. 344. The ratio of this Judgment is that confessional statement of co-accused ... been closed. He had also placed reliance on the Judgment in L. K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 1997 Cri.L
This distinction was first noticed by this Court in L.K. Advani v. CBI . The Court noted that the objects of two Acts, namely
nine years rigorous imprisonment for the charge No.219.
R.42-S.K.Mohammed Ali (A163)
A sentence of life imprisonment for the charge ... when the then President of Bharathiya Janata Party Thiru.L.K.Advani was to address an election meeting at R.S. Puram, in Coimbatore city
despatched High Grade Explosives which had been procured through A141-K.Raju @ Army Raju - a deserter from Assam Rifles, Nagaland. The said explosives ... held on 14.2.1998 at Coimbatore in which the BJP leader L.K.Advani to address, on the eve of election.
8. The prosecution further alleged
Jain Brothers with regard to the payments made to
Sri.L.K.Advani and Shri.V.C.Shukla, the then members of Parliament, criminal
prosecution ... confirmed by the Supreme Court. The order framing charge against
Sri.L.K.Advani was set aside by the High Court and upheld
Delhi Law Times
553. (single Judge)
( b) L.K. Advani and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 66 (1997)
Delhi Law Times 618. (Single Judge
individual and thereby cause irreparable injury to him. In L.K. Advani 's case (supra), their Lordships held that just because the Government
Uma Singal, New Delhi vs Acit, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi on 7 December, 2018
paper found from the possession of the third party (Shri A.K. Chajjer). He has contended that no incriminating document/asset was found ... Delhi High Court in the case of L.K. Advani, observed that the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable to proceedings under
held by Honble Delhi High Court in the case of L.K. Advani vs. Central Bureau of Investigation as reported ... High Court of Delhi in the said case of L.K. Advani (supra), and therefore, such third party evidence is not admissible. It was held
