Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1243 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

State vs Saroj on 13 December, 2023

".....The report prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not be straightway reflected or disbelieved unless and until there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of his official duty by the officers of the corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 13 of 15 such act or document and not against the same. Thus there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct....".
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Saroj on 28 May, 2016

In his cross examination, he deposed that he left the PS at FIR NO. 144/06 State Vs. Saroj (Page 5 of 11) about 2:20 pm and reached the spot within 10 minutes. The spot was surrounded with residential area. Before sending rukka IO recorded the statement of 161 Cr.P.C, site plan and arrest memo. Ct. Rajnish went to PS at about 4:50 pm and came back within 1 hour. Seal was handed over to Ct. Rajnish on the next day. All the writing work was done while sitting on pavement. Arrest memo was prepared at about 5:30 to 5:45 pm. Finally they left the spot at about 6:45 pm. No lady constable was present during the whole proceedings. Case property was brought by him to the PS. It is wrong to suggest that accused was called from his house at PS and falsely implicated in the present case. It is further wrong to suggest that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Saroj on 11 October, 2023

8. PW4 HC Rakesh deposed that on 29.01.2019 he was posted as MHCM and IO deposited case property and he made the entry of the same in register no. 19 vide entry no. 4969/2019 and the photocopy of the same was Ex. PW-4/A (OSR). He further deposed that on 31.01.2019 he handed over the sample to Ct. Ravinder vide RC no. 58/21/19 and the copy of the same is Ex. PW-4/B (OSR). On 03.04.2019, he received the result of sample and entered the same in register no. 19) while on 01.03.2019, the case property of the present case was destroyed and the copy of the order was marked as A. FIR No. 131/19 State vs. Saroj 3 / 10 During cross-examination, he admitted that in register no. 19, there was no entry regarding handing over the case property for destruction. He voluntarily deposed that the entry of the same was made in the Roznamcha. He admitted that there was no receiving in column no. 7 of Register No. 19. He admitted that no illicit liquor was confiscated in his presence.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

3.Title State vs . Saroj on 16 May, 2013

4. No other Prosecution Witness was examined. Prosecution FIR no. 5/09 State v. Saroj Page no. 2 of 8 Evidence was closed and statement of the accused was recorded on 16.05.2013 wherein the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated and that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession. However, accused declined to lead evidence in his defence.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central University Of Jharkhand vs Harish Mohan Son Of Late Jagdish Prasad ... on 16 May, 2024

(i) The question of applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since in these cases the factual aspect is quite different to that of the present one. Here, in the present case the writ petitioner time and again, even though has been noticed to participate in the enquiry, but he has chosen not to appear rather on each and every date when the notice was issued, he has communicated through e-mail that he will not appear. The contention, therefore, has been raised that a public servant is required to obey the order passed by the competent authority but not appearing intentionally is nothing but an arrogant attitude of the writ petitioner.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next