Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 138 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jagdish on 22 March, 2010

State vs Jagdish on 10 November, 2014

11. As per PW6­Sh. Rama Shankar, Record clerk, BJRM Hospital, he had been deputed by Ms to depose on behalf of Dr. Anand who has left the BJRM hospital and whose present whereabouts were not known to the hospital. He had worked with DR. Anand in the hospital and he is aware of his handwritings and Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 7 signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Jagdish Kumar S/O Tej Ram, on 21 July, 2011

7. At this, one Rajender @ Raja, who was running a tea shop on the road, tried to save Peera Ram. At this, Vinod stated that he was also the sympathizer of Peera Ram, therefore, he should also be taught a lesson. Many public persons had also gathered there in the meanwhile and somebody from the crowd stated, that the accused persons be caught hold off. At this, in order to scare the crowd, Vinod assaulted one person on his head with a lathi blow, who started running towards his house and all the three accused persons ran after him and Vinod stated that " yeh sala Raghubir ka pakka himayati lagta hai, bachne na paye, ishko khatam kar State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 6 do". Thereafter, Surender @ Sonu assaulted the said person with the iron pipe on his head and Jagdish assaulted him on his face with some sharp edged weapon.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish on 26 May, 2022

Complainant stated the registration no. of the offending vehicle on the basis of which notice u/s 133 MV Act was served upon the registered owner Shri Niwas which is Ex. PW4/C. The owner Shri Niwas alongwith accused and one relative reached police station where the injured identified the offending vehicle as well as the accused. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. He further deposed that the accused as well as the owner of the vehicle had informed him that they had been falsely implicated in the present case as their vehicle was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. He further deposed that FIR No. 125/15 State vs. Jagdish 12 / 15 accused failed to provide any documentary proof in his defence. The offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CR 7721 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D bearing signature of witness at point A. Before seizure of offending vehicle in the present FIR, it was also seized in some other matter bearing no. 45/15 during investigation and the documents of offending vehicle were already seized in the said FIR. Copy of the seizure memo of FIR No. 45/15 is Mark-X. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Mechanical inspection of the vehicle was conducted. The witness identified the photographs of the offending vehicle which are Ex. P-1 (colly).
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Case Of "Sadhu Singh vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 By The ... on 13 May, 2015

6. During cross examination, he stated that he had left for patrolling at about 11.00 am. He did not remember whether he had made entry in the daily State v. Jagdish U/s 61 Punjab Excise Act 3/9 FIR No. 212/2003 PS Paschim Vihar register. He admitted that public persons were present at the spot. He admitted that he had not given any notice to the public persons who had refused to join the investigation. He remained at the spot till 5.30 pm. He denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated as he had refused to come to the police chowki when he was called 2-3 days prior to the date of incident. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of the accused were taken on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared at the police station.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish on 19 December, 2012

14. In the instant matter, IO and other police official have submitted that IO had requested some passersby/residents to join the investigation. However, no notice was served to public persons who refused to join the investigation. It is note worthy that I.O. had not made any serious endeavour to join the passers­by in the investigation of the case. Also as per rukka IO did not serve written notice to the passersby who refused to join the police proceedings. At least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, IO could have very well served the passers­by with notice in writing FIR no. 329/10 State vs. Jagdish PS Amar Colony Page 7 of 11 requiring them to join the police proceedings or to face action u/s 187 IPC in as much as in the present case there was no possibility of accused escaping his apprehension / arrest or crime going undetected in as much as by the said time, accused stood already apprehended by the police. Failure on the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts for joining independent public witnesses in the proceedings when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution in view of the following case laws.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Case Of "Sadhu Singh vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 By The ... on 25 June, 2018

8. During cross examination, witness admitted that the spot was surrounded by residential area. Public persons were coming and going from the spot. No notice was served upon them who refused to join the investigation. IO had not made any alteration or deletion of those documents. It was natural dark but State v. Jagdish U/s 33 of the Delhi Excise Act 4/9 FIR No. 154/13 PS Uttam Nagar street light was there but not shown in the site plan Ex.PW1/C. He returned the seal on the next day. No handing over or written memo was prepared. Case property was brought to PS on rickshaw. He denied the suggestion that accused was picked from home and falsely implicated in this case and alleged recovery was fake and planted.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Laxman Ramchandra Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2012

6. The aforesaid submissions were countered by learned A.P.P. by urging that the bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondent has duly taken into consideration the decision in case of State of Haryana v. Jagdish (supra) and as per paragraph no.43 of the said judgment, the case of the petitioner has been considered on the Guidelines which were applicable on the date of his conviction as well as Guidelines which were in force at the time of considering the case of the petitioner to ascertain as to which of the said Guidelines were beneficial for the petitioner. It was urged that there is no substance in the submissions that the reasons are not given in the order impugned as the same duly reveals that the judgment dated 6th September, 1995 delivered by the trial Court was duly considered and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:14:47 ::: 5 w2976.11 the fact that the same discloses of the petitioner having committed murder of his wife with premediation by setting her on fire by means of kerosene, due to his suspicion of her character was taken into account while categorising the petitioner in category 1 (d) of 1992 Guidelines and category 2 (b) of the Guidelines of 2010.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P D Kode - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish on 13 April, 2010

8. In the case in hand, on the basis of inspection dated 17.12.08, complainant company raised a bill against the accused Jagdish and the accused has deposited the total payment of Rs.6,390/­, in the office of the complainant company i.e. NDPL, towards the full and final settlement regarding the bill in question of Rs.12,780/­, bearing EAC No. 53557. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 Sh. R.N. Gupta, that the accused has deposited the payment of Rs.6,390/­ towards the full and final settlement regarding the bill in question. Now, no grievance is left against the accused, namely, Jagdish, so far as the cause of action of the present case is concerned. The accused, namely, Jagdish has satisfied his civil liabilities with the complainant company i.e. NDPL. Since, the accused has satisfied his civil liability with the complainant company, no fruitful purpose will be served by imposing any criminal penalty upon the accused. Accordingly, the accused, namely, Jagdish is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, the accused is not entitled to claim the amount of Rs.6,390/­ which STATE VS. JAGDISH FIR NO. 51/09 4/5 ­5­ has been deposited by him towards the fulfillment of his civil liability.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next