Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Majeed Abdul Reheman Sarkhot vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 June, 2001

Fir No. 27/12; State vs . Chote Lal & Anr. Page 1 Of 17 on 25 July, 2013

In support of their arguments, Ld. defence counsel relied upon the judgements reported in the case of FIR No. 27/12; State Vs. Chote Lal & Anr. Page 6 of 17 Rabindranath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa 1984 CRI.L.J 1392; Madan Lal Sharma Vs. The State 1990 Cri.L.J 1989; Shamshad Ali Vs. State 1998 (1) CC Cases 492 (HC); Umashanker Vs. State of Chattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3074; Mohd. Yasin Vs. State of UP 1997 CRI.L.J. 3188; Veera Swamy Shanmugam Sundaram Vs. The State of AP 2001 CRI.L.J. 3787; M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1705; Abdul Majeed Abdul Rehman Sarkhot Vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 CRI.L.J. 720.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh vs State Of Haryana on 18 February, 2014

12. Similar arguments were advanced before the trial Court and were rightly repelled by the trial Court. The currency notes involved in the case of Reman @ Raman & Anr's case (supra) and Abdul Majeed Abdul Reheman Sarkhot's case (supra) were few in nature. However, in the present case, the recovery from the appellant/accused Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh was 76 currency notes of the denomination of 1000/- each and from Santosh 33 currency notes of the denomination of 1000/- each were recovered. Such a number of currency notes cannot be said to be kept without knowledge. So, the above said contention is meritless.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K C Puri - Full Document
1