Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 2517 (1.02 seconds)Documents citing
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008
State vs . Kamal on 20 October, 2011
20. In this case complainant is herself only eye witness of the
incident. Although it is not a rule of evidence that there should be
specific number of witnesses to rely upon the prosecution, but the
statement of the witness to be relied upon must be uncontradictory
14 FIR No:186/2010
State Vs. Kamal
and corroborative. The complainant had given her statement before
the court with some contradictions to her statement before the police
i.e. Ex.PW2/A. In Ex.PW2/A she had not stated that one of the
assailants was wearing a helmet whereas in her statements before the
court she stated this thing. In her cross examination she stated that
she along with her son chased the assailants as her son was called by
her who was standing near the place of incident. These facts are not
stated by her in Ex.PW2/A and her son was also not made a witness
by the prosecution. No such reason is given by the prosecution that
when there was a eye witness and that also son of the complainant,
then why he was not joined into investigation.
Criminal Case/228/2004 on 17 September, 2013
7. Examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C, both the accused claimed innocence.
Accused Pawan Kumar stated that he was called from his house by police
and falsely implicated in the case being known to the other accused. On
FIR No. 228/04 State v. Kamal Kumar and Another 4 of 10
the other hand, accused Kamal Kumar stated that he was taken by the
police from his house for the purpose of interrogation and thereafter
falsely implicated in the case.
State vs . Kamal on 16 March, 2010
13. In the present case, the MHC(M) at PS Nabi Karim with whom the case
property and sample liquor was deposited has not been examined as a
prosecution witness. To my mind, this failure on the part of prosecution is
fatal for the case of prosecution in as much as in the absence of deposition of
MHC(M) PS Nabi Karim, chances of fabrication with the case property
cannot be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt. To rule out the possibility of
Page 9 of 10
10
FIR No. 306/03
State vs. Kamal
fabrication with case property, prosecution was under obligation to examine
all the officers/officials possessing the case property/sample property with a
specific positive deposition that so long as the case property/ sample
property remained in their possession it was not tempered with.
State vs . : Kamal on 15 November, 2011
5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and carefully
perused the record. In the present case, PW-3 and PW-4 are the material
witnesses. Nothing substantial has came out in their cross examination which
can rebut their testimonies. The next question for consideration is the
FIR No. 682/07 State Vs Kamal 4 of 7
probative value of the evidence lead by prosecution and its over all
effectiveness for proving the guilt of the accused person. It was argued on
behalf of accused that the procedure under Section 50 of NDPS regarding the
search is not complied with. The perusal of record also shows that no such
requisition was made by the accused but at the same time no where any
record the said fact has been recorded by the IO that accused has not
requisitioned his search by the gazetted officer. The omission on the part of IO
to record any such non requisition raises doubt about version of prosecution.
Allegations are that the charas like product has been supplied to the accused
by the person who had come to meet the accused on that day. Regarding this
aspect, no record has been placed on record only the verbal testimony of
PW-3 and PW-4 is on record. PW-3 in his cross examination has stated that
he can disclose the name of person who come to meet accused after going
through the record but volunteered that a friend named Vijay came to meet
and delivered the same. The absence of producing any record whereas
claiming that even the photograph and address of the person is retained,
there is doubt regarding this aspect. Even the IO has not taken the pains to
collect the said record which is a very essential link in the present case.
State vs . on 18 January, 2018
Hon Ble Shri Shekhar Agarwal vs Anjaly Yadav on 20 February, 2014
Thus, in our considered view, the decision in State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another(supra) does not help the review petitioner in the instant case.
Jia Lal Kapur vs Uoi & Anr on 27 January, 2016
25. We may set out the authoritative enunciation of law in State
of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta on the issue of when a review petition
would lie (para 35); whether a subsequent contrary judgment
would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record (paras
19 and 20); and consideration of the explanation to sub-rule 2 of
Rule 1 under Order XLVII of the CPC, extract whereof is
reproduced in extenso which is in the following terms :
Union Of India Through Secretary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2025
(State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612)
"35. The principles which can be culled out from the
above noted judgments are:
Shri Ravinder Kumar vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2014
24. However, we are of the view that it is not necessary to go into these cases in view of clear findings regarding the RA having been rendered infructuous. It would be apt to take a note of sub-clause (vii) of Para 35 of the judgment in the case of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamalsengupta & Anr. (supra). This sub-clause provides that the Tribunal has to confine its adjudication with reference to the materials which were available at the time of the initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development is not to be taken note for declaring the initial order/decision vitiated by an error of judgment. We have fully taken note of the argument tendered by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order dated 17.8.2012 has rendered the present RA infructuous.