Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 109 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Mohd. Afzal And Ors. [Along With Crl. A. ... on 29 October, 2003

State vs . 1. Mohd. Afzal @ Sahil S/O Ali Mohd., on 1 November, 2011

On 10.06.2008, the dead body was identified, as that of one Arshad Khan S/o Alam Ali by his brother Mazhar Ali Khan, consequently, I.O prepared the inquest papers, after the identification of the dead body and got the postmortem conducted. The said Mazhar Ali Khan disclosed to the I.O that his brother was having one mobile No. 9999721220 and he was having mobile No.9359523339 State Vs. Mohd. Afzal etc. PS Punjabi Bagh FIR No.203/08 4 and on 30.05.2009 at around 11:00 p.m, he had made a call from Dehradoon on the mobile phone of his brother, at that time his brother informed him that he was with his friends Afzal, Rajesh and Bhupender and after that time the whereabouts of his brother were not available and his phone was also not responding.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 18/09 ; State vs . Mohd. Afzal ; Ps Seelam Pur ; U/S 3(4) & ... on 10 December, 2010

13.Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused submitted that there is no evidence at all on record which is indicative that accused was the member of organized crime syndicate. It is further contended that there was no material before the sanctioning authority for invoking MCOCA against the accused. After registration of the FIR the IO of this case intentionally had not disclosed and brought on record all the true facts before the sanctioning authority for obtaining sanction to file the charge sheet. Admittedly total number of 19 cognizable cases have been allegedly registered w.e.f 11.10.90 till 10.10.06 in which the court has taken cognizance. The FIR was registered on 16.2.09, therefore, the cases registered beyond period of ten years i.e prior to 16.2.1999 cannot be taken into consideration for invoking MCOC Act as provided Page 13/36 14 FIR NO. 18/09 ; STATE VS. MOHD. AFZAL ; PS SEELAM PUR ; U/S 3(4) & (5) MCOCA u/s 2 (d) of the MCOC Act and those activities cannot be construed within the term "preceding ten years." After excluding the cases registered prior to year 1999 only ten cases left to be considered by this court for the purpose of invoking the provisions of MCOCA against the accused. On perusal of the charge sheets of those cases mentioned at sl. no. 10 to 19 in the charge sheet filed against the accused it is established that in most of the cases either the accused has been discharged or acquitted except the one case u/s 25 Arms Act registered at PS Seelam Pur vide FIR no. 178/03 and another u/s 452/323/336/506/34 IPC r./w Sec. 27 of Arms Act registered at PS Seelam Pur vide FIR no. 617/06. On perusal of the brief facts of the case u/s 25 Arms Act it transpires that:
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State ...........Prosecution vs . on 12 April, 2023

9. PW5 Retired SI Uday Singh (IO) deposed that upon receiving DD no.12A Ex.PW5/A in respect of theft of a vehicle, he alongwith Ct. Mintu reached the spot. As the complainant was not found, he came back to the police station. In the afternoon, complainant came to police station and he recorded his statement. He prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/B and got the FIR registered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW5/C at the instance of the complainant. On 09.08.2012, he received DD no.30A Ex.PW5/D qua recovery of stolen case property and went to PS Nazibabad on 12.08.2012. He met SI Ashok, who handed over to him the relevant State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.5/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Afjal on 17 December, 2025

12. Moving further, it is vital to mention here that complainant is a prime public witness to this case. To the utter dismay of prosecution, the testimony of complainant has brought in several doubts in the prosecution case. 12.1 Complainant has been unable to divulge any substantial information with FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 5/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.17 04:32:17 +0530 respect to incident in question in her examination in chief. She failed to identify the accused persons in court and also denied the case proceedings in toto. Even after being cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, she could not lend much needed support to the dipping prosecution case. As complainant has not supported her case, no credibility can be attached to the statement of the complainant as she has completely turned aside the story put forward by the prosecution. 12.2 Moving further, it is pertinent to note that the police witness i.e. PW-3 HC Rajiv Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2021, he was posted at PS Nand Nagri as HC and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. At around 3- 3:15 PM, he received a call regarding accused who was apprehended at the Gagan Cinema alongwith the mobile phone. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Parveen went to the spot where they met with Ct. Akshay, ASI Rajinder and complainant Preeti and thereafter formal proceedings followed. The incident did not occur before his eyes. Hence, his testimony is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. 12.3 From the above testimonies itself, the case of the prosecution is rendered questionable to the extent that it would be unjust to attach the culpability to the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

48. Reliance Was Further Placed Upon ... vs . State (Delhi on 7 May, 2015

81. During the course of arguments, it was also contended that the tainted money was planted upon the accused and the accused never demanded or accepted any money from the complainant. In this regard, it is important to note that the accused did not lead any evidence to show that the tainted money was planted upon the accused. He did not even step into the witness box to substantiate this plea and thus, has not offered himself to be cross­examined on this point. It has been discussed above that the complainant has categorically deposed that the bribe was demanded by the accused, the same was paid by the complainant to the accused and the tainted money was recovered from the possession of the accused. The testimony of the complainant in this regard has not been challenged by the accused during the cross­examination of the complainant. Therefore, the testimony of the complainant in this regard has be CC No. 45/11 accepted in view of the judgments referred above i.e. State Vs. Mohd. Afzal & Ors. (Supra), State of Himachal Prasad Vs. Thakur Dass (Supra) and Motilal Vs. State of of Madhya Pradesh (Supra). Hence, this plea of the accused is unsustainable and cannot be believed.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next