Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 280 (1.88 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Bihar vs Rani Sonabati Kumari on 20 September, 1960

State vs . Rani on 9 September, 2019

28. First, it is an admitted fact emerging from the record of the case that the appellant was not produced before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; Second, it is also an admitted fact that due to the aforementioned first reason, the search and recovery of the contraband Charas was not made from the appellant in the presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; Third, it is also an admitted fact that none of the police officials of the raiding FIR No. 68/06 State Vs. Rani 13/15 party, who recovered the contraband Charas from him, was the Gazetted Officer and nor they could be and, therefore, they were not empowered to make search and recovery from the appellant of the contraband Charas as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act except in the presence of either a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; Fourth, in order to make the search and recovery of the contraband articles from the body of the suspect, the search and recovery has to be in conformity with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is, therefore, mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the search and recovery was made from the appellant in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rani on 3 December, 2025

19.As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the sample of liquor and FIR No. 472/2018 Page No. 12/17 CR Cases 1919/2019 State Vs. Rani case property were sealed by the investigating officer with the seal of 'SGV5SED'. However, the PWs have not deposed qua the handing over of the said seals to any other witness or police official and no handing over memo regarding the same was prepared. The seal in the present case was not handed over to any independent witness nor was it deposited in the malkhana to assail the possibility of its misuse. Thus, the possibility that the case property may have been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rani on 4 September, 2025

2025.09.04 16:08:01 +0530 STATE Vs. RANI was also subsequently a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness and it remained in the possession of police officials of the same PS .Therefore seal was well within the reach of the IO. Hence, the possibility of tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, alleged recovered bottles of liquor were not bearing any specific marks to show that the said case property was recovered from the possession of the accused. Since the seal remained in the possession of police officials, hence the particulars of the case property mentioned on the katta could have been written anytime and thus there is every possibility of tampering and manipulation.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rani on 6 March, 2013

11. In the present case, no sincere effort appears to have been made out by the IO to join public witnesses. Even as per complainant HC Ishwar Singh, IO had requested 4-5 passers-by to join the police proceedings but they have all left the spot without telling their names and addresses after giving reasonable excuses for not joining the police proceedings. It is note worthy that I.O has not made a note of the excuses given by the passers-by in the rukka. This failure on his part goes to suggest that he did not make sincere efforts to join the passers-by in the police proceedings. Also as per rukka IO did not serve written notice to the passersby who refused to join the police proceedings. At least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, IO could have very well served the passers-by with notice in writing requiring them to join the police proceedings or to face action u/s 187 IPC in as much as in the present case there was no possibility of accused escaping his apprehension / arrest or crime going undetected in as much as by the said time, accused stood already apprehended by the police. Failure on FIR No. 659/07 5 State vs. Rani the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts for joining independent public witnesses in the proceedings when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution in view of the following case laws.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. K.Somanath Nayak vs Sri. D.Veerendra Heggade on 5 May, 2022

In this regard, the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RANI SONABATI KUMARI (supra) is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and the 145 finding recorded by me on the factual aspects of the case, I do not find any acceptable ground as raised by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Pramod N. Kathavi with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to award compensation as the finding recorded by the trial Court on point No.3 is based on the evidentiary value and the mental agony caused to the respondent at the instance of the derogatory remarks made by the petitioner in defiance of the interim order of injunction dated 05th November, 2013. The uncalled for and frivolous allegation made by the litigants, like the petitioner herein, in defiance of interim order, have to be dealt with sctrictly in accordance with principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. It is a matter of common experience that valuable time of the Court is consumed or more particularly wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. The credibility of the entire judiciary is at stake, in view of the attitude of the petitioner herein and effective remedial steps are to be taken by imposing exemplary costs or award compensation to the aggrieved person, like respondent herein. Every case emanates from egoistic and undeterred person, like petitioner herein, making frivolous allegations, inter alia, malign the 146 reputation of the public benevolent person, have to be assessed with cogent evidence and award compensation to such aggrieved person like respondent herein, to put an end to adamant characterised person like petitioner. Trial Courts have to adopt the principle of awarding compensation by exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, if there is deliberate violation of the interim orders passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, by exercising power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure and trial Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting compensation to the aggrieved party, whose reputation is being maligned, despite knowing fully well that the trial Court has passed the ad interim injunction. Imposition of cost, and awarding of compensation would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false allegation by the contemnor. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next