Smt. Pushpa Kochar And Ors. vs The Rajasthan High Court And Ors. on 17 July, 2001
WHETHER DECISION IN AJIT SINGH'S II CASE (AJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB ) OVERRULES KAILASH CHAND JOSHI'S CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY OR ONLY PARTLY?
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (4.52 seconds)Documents citing
Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999
State Rep.By vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 20 July, 2023
Before the Full Bench of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab2 it was
argued on behalf of the appellant therein, who was in "active
service" of the Air Force, that on account of the non-compli-
ance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Act and Section
549 CrPC (corresponding to Section 475 of the Code), the
committal of the appellant and his trial held in pursuance
thereof must be held to be without jurisdiction. The Full Bench
repelled the argument and opined:
C.O. Col. Vivek Mehta, 14 Corps ... vs Ritesh Kumar Vishwakarma & Anr. on 28 April, 2009
Before the Full Bench of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ajit Singh v. State of
Punjab2 it was argued on behalf of the appellant therein,
who was in "active service" of the Air Force, that on
account of the non-compliance with the provisions of
Section 125 of the Act and Section 549 CrPC
(corresponding to Section 475 of the Code), the
committal of the appellant and his trial held in
pursuance thereof must be held to be without
jurisdiction. The Full Bench repelled the argument and
opined:
State Rep.By vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 20 July, 2023
Before the Full Bench of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab2 it was
argued on behalf of the appellant therein, who was in "active
service" of the Air Force, that on account of the non-compli-
ance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Act and Section
549 CrPC (corresponding to Section 475 of the Code), the
committal of the appellant and his trial held in pursuance
thereof must be held to be without jurisdiction. The Full Bench
repelled the argument and opined:
M/S.Sivanandha Steel Ltd vs M/S.Upasana Finance Ltd on 10 June, 2010
11. Therefore, in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra, it is not safe and desirable for the Court to compare the signature of the accused with the admitted signature on its own and to base its findings and as such, the reason assigned by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the petitions is unacceptable and unreasonable.
2. Title Of The Case : State vs Vicky Berry on 29 February, 2012
19. It is pertinent to mention here that the incident took place on
21.10.06 whereas the sample of illicit liquor was deposited in excise
laboratory on 23.11.06. It is clear that there is ordinate delay in sending the
sample/ case property to the excise laboratory which has not been explained
and in such circumstances, when the seal was not handed over to
independent person and remained with the police officials of the same police
station where the property was lying, benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused as observed in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1984 (2) RCR 1995.
Join Independent Witnesses. In Roop ... vs . State Of on 20 April, 2011
9. Further, there is also delay of about 24 days in sending the
sample property to the excise lab which has not been explained and in such
FIR No. 6/9
circumstances especially when the seal was not handed over to independent
persons and remained with the police officials of the same police station
where the property was lying benefit of doubt must be given to the accused
as observed in AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 1984 (2) RECENT
CRIMINAL REPORTS 95.
Roop Chand vs . State Of Haryana 1990 (1) Clr 69 It Was on 3 May, 2011
9. Further, there is also delay of about 16 days in sending the
sample property to the excise lab which has not been explained and in such
circumstances especially when the seal was not handed over to independent
persons and remained with the police officials of the same police station
where the property was lying benefit of doubt must be given to the accused
as observed in AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 1984 (2) RECENT
CRIMINAL REPORTS 95.
Investigating Officer To Join ... vs . on 13 May, 2011
9. Further, there is also delay of about 30 days in sending the
sample property to the excise lab which has not been explained and in such
circumstances especially when the seal was not handed over to independent
persons and remained with the police officials of the same police station
where the property was lying benefit of doubt must be given to the accused
as observed in AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 1984 (2) RECENT
CRIMINAL REPORTS 95.
In Re: State vs Munna Kumar on 13 July, 2012
18. Apart from the non joining of independent witness the prosecution
story suffers from various loop holes. Admittedly, no signatures of the
person depositing the case property in the Malkhanna were taken in
register no. 19 by MHC (M) and neither the signatures of the person who
took the sample to FSL were taken. These circumstances especially when
the seal was not handed over to independent persons and remained with
the police officials of the same police station where the property was lying
benefit of doubt must be given to the accused as observed in AJIT SINGH
VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 1984 (2) RECENT CRIMINAL REPORTS 95.