Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Gyanchand Mehta vs State & Anr on 13 July, 2009

State vs . Gyan Chand on 26 June, 2013

22. Ld. Defence counsel argued that even though PW2 has not State Vs. Gyan Chand FIR No. 258/01 Page No. 9/15 been cross­examined by him, she failed to specify in her testimony about the date and place of demand and further she did not specify as to why the demands were raised by the accused. It was argued that since the purpose of demand was not specified by the complainant, it cannot be presumed that the demand was towards dowry and hence, the accused cannot be convicted.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Ghan Shyam Dass Chopra vs The Registrar Of Companies on 14 September, 2012

In the application, petitioner also referred before the Trial Magistrate to decision in State vs. Gyan Chand 2010 (III) AD Delhi 559. Copy of the judgment passed by the civil court in suit no. 72/03 was also stated to be have already been filed. But the Trial Magistrate has not given any reasons as to how the application was without any basis. Furthermore, in the impugned order, learned Trial Magistrate has observed that the application was filed with a prayer for discharge. This observation made by the learned Trial Magistrate is against record. No prayer for discharge was made in this application.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Prasant Shukla & Anr. on 30 May, 2013

PS Palam Village vis points argued. With respect to preliminary contention made by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there is delay in FIR and same is not explained by the prosecution, to this arguments it is observed that mere delay in lodging in FIR is no ground to discredit the prosecution case if it is otherwise trustworthy and reliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "State Vs Gyan Chand", 2001 (6) SCC 71 observed that "delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discrediting the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution, however, if the delay is explained to satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground of disbelieving and discrediting the entire prosecution case. In the present case there is nothing on record which could suggest that delay in lodging of FIR has been done maliciously and in view of the same the preliminary arguments of the counsel for the accused persons is dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gyan Chandra And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2022

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.07.2011 on which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Allahabad took cognizance as Case No. 1162 of 2011 (State Vs. Gyan Chandra and another) as Case Crime No. 256 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Cantonment, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Allahabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Harish Chanrda Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. on 19 January, 2010

This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C No.32, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 400 of 2008 (Crime No. 23 of 2008): State Vs Gyan Chandra and another, under Sections 8/21 N.D.P.S.Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused guilty under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, consequently he has convicted and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further directed that in case accused appellants fail to deposit the amount of fine, they will further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month under the aforesaid Section.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Chauhan - Full Document
1