Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 294 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing C.M.Sharma vs State Of A.P. Th. I.P on 25 November, 2010

Deorao Marotrao Bhagatkar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thr. ... on 14 August, 2018

24. Before analyzing further as to whether in the present case oral and documentary evidence was sufficient to raise the aforesaid presumption under section 20 of the said Act against the appellant, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.M.Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) where the Court was faced with a similar situation wherein the shadow witness had been asked by the accused to leave the cabin when the trap was actually executed. It ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2018 01:54:33 ::: APEAL406.04-Judgment 26/40 was contended in the said case that since the shadow witness was not present when the complainant gave the bribe amount to the accused, the evidence of the complainant was uncorroborated and in such situation, the prosecution case could not be said to have been proved.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Sri P Manjunath vs The State By Karnataka on 16 November, 2022

(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court therein was following the judgments rendered a little earlier in time in the case of C.M. SHARMA v. STATE OF A.P. 1 (2014) 13 SCC 55 14 reported in (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. GIRISH BABU v. CBI reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779, wherein the Apex Court in those cases had clearly held that mere recovery of currency notes from the accused is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

A.Kanagarajan vs State Through on 1 December, 2014

14.1. But, in the case on hand, P.W.2 has not accompanied shadow witness. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant has directed the shadow witness to go out of the place during the trap proceedings. As per the evidence of P.W.2 itself, he went independently without accompanying anybody and no reason has been assigned as to why shadow witness has not been accompanying P.W.2. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - R Mala - Full Document

Dattatraya Rajaram Thaokar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2017

In rebuttal, Shri Khubalkar would urge that the facts which fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.M. Sharma vs. State of Andhra Pradhesh were glaringly different. The accused in C.M. Sharma asked the shadow panch to leave the chamber. The shadow panch left the chamber. The complainant however, brought the shadow panch back in the chamber and represented to the accused that he was his financer. Despite an ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 01:36:18 ::: apeal21.02.J.odt 13 attempt made by the complainant and the shadow panch to be secure entry in the chamber, the accused did not relent and sent the shadow panch out of the chamber. Shri Khubalkar invites my attention to the inconsistent versions of the complainant and the shadow panch as to what transpired at the door of the cabin of the accused. While the shadow panch speaks of a signal given by the accused to keep away the complainant contends that the accused asked the shadow panch not to enter the cabin.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next