Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 941 (8.13 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. vs M.K. Anthony on 6 November, 1984

S.C. No. 6604/2016 State vs . Paul Anthony 1/55 on 20 January, 2018

One sample of 20 Grams was drawn. FSL form was filled. The sample and the remaining substance were sealed with the seal of SPL CELL SR1. Seal was also affixed on the FSL S.C. No. 6604/2016 State vs. Paul Anthony 3/55 form. Seizure memo was prepared. After use, the seal was handed over to SI Shishu Pal. SI Deepak Kumar prepared rukka. SI Ranjit Singh, who is second IO of the case also arrived at the spot on being told by the D.O. at the office of Special Cell at about 5 pm that SI Deepak Kumar had apprehended a person with drugs and he was required to go to the spot as per instruction of senior officers.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Anthony on 23 August, 2019

11. PW 6 ASI Gulab Singh has deposed that on 08.07.2013 he was posted at Special Staff, Sector 1, Outer District. On that day he received the DD no. 8A for the purpose of the investigation. After receiving the same, he alone reached at the spot i.e. T­point Sector 17, road towards Bawana. After reaching there, he met HC Jagdish, who was already present at the spot. HC Jagdish handed over accused Antony and the case property i.e. illicit liquor and car bearing no. 1545. He did not remember the complete registration number. Ct. Naveen Kumar reached at the spot along with the rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. He FIR No. 274/13 State Vs. Anthony 10 arrested the accused Antony and personally searched. He deposited the case property i.e. illicit liquor and car in the malkhana, PS KNK Marg. During the investigation he sent Ct. Naveen to deposit the sample at Excise Laboratory. Ld. APP for the state cross examined the witness.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs (1)Mange Ram S/O Ram Pal on 21 March, 2011

70 On the basis evidence brought forth by the prosecution, particularly the statements of complainant (PW2), Surjit Singh (PW3), Kuldeep Singh (PW4) and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shamshul Kanwar @ State of U.P. (supra), State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony (supra), Prithu @ Prithvi Chand and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra), State of U.P. Vs. Dan Singh (supra), Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Rizan & Anr. Vs. State of Chattisgarh (supra), Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam (supra), Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP (supra), Mehbub Samsuddin Malek Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused Mahesh in riots (under Section 148 IPC) and his participation in the SC No.1A/2011 State vs Mange Ram etc. Page 53 of 63 commission of murder (under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC).
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2014

―28. ...Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words "proved", "disproved" and "not proved" lays down the standard of proof, namely, about the existence or non- existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The Section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, "believe it to exist" and secondly in which though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The Act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the Court believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable in the view of a prudent man and now we come to the third stage where in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by a prudent man.‖ (Emphasis supplied) 13.13.5 In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, the Supreme Court held that the approach of the Court should be to find out whether the Crl.A.Nos.741, 910/2008 & 145/2012 1153 evidence of a witness has a ring of truth. The Supreme Court held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 384 - Cited by 4 - G Mittal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next