Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 97 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Sunheri & Anr. on 20 July, 2012

State vs . Asha Tripathi Fir No. 598/15 Page No. 1 ... on 31 May, 2019

25. The next contention raised on behalf of accused that videographer namely Amarjeet Singh has not been examined in this case and thus the videography remained unproved and further placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble STATE Vs. ASHA TRIPATHI FIR No. 598/15 Page no. 12 of 16 13 High court in case titled as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Sunheri & Ors., 2012 (4) JCC 2712 however, the said judgment is of no help as in the said case CD was not prepared at the time of inspection and the seized meter and the wire through which the direct theft was being committed were not produced in the Court. Furthermore, the videography is only the secondary evidence thus, the case of the prosecution cannot be denied merely on the ground that videographer has not been examined.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bypl vs . Man Mohan Sharma on 11 July, 2013

12. Admittedly, the inspecting team has not seized any material from the site which was used for the theft of electricity which was mandatory on their part as per aforesaid Regulation. PW- 1 Sh. Ram Pher stated that accused did not allow the members of raiding team to seize the material. The members of the inspecting team were within their rights to call the police for help to seize the material, which they failed to do. The non seizure of case property goes to the root of this case. As per the recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court in 2012 (4) JCC 2713 titled as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Sunheri & Ors., the non seizure of material through which direct theft was being committing was held to Page 6 CC No.205/07 BYPL VS. Man Mohan Sharma be fatal to the case of the company.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bypl vs . Sanju Parewa on 13 November, 2014

It was argued by the company that accused was present at the time of inspection and he was also shown in the photographs but company failed to prove the photographs and CD filed on record as who actual took the same at the spot was not examined by the company. It was also argued that illegal material was not seized from the site due to hindrance created by the user at site. It does not appeal to common sense and logic when they were allowed to take photographs then how the persons could resist the seizure of the illegal material and that too in the presence of police. The non seizure of material through which direct theft was being committing. As per the recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court in 2012 (4) JCC 2713 titled as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Sunheri & Ors., the non production of the photographer and non - seizure of the illegal material at site was held to be fatal to the case of the company.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next