Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Rajinder Chandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr on 24 January, 2002

Malla Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 February, 2006

19. So far as the statement of CW-3 Prakash Chand Rathore, is concerned, he categorically admitted that the on the basis of application for getting the name of the petitioner included in the voter list, the form was signed by his brother and the form Ex. C-7 which is said to be filed for getting the voter's identity card prepared, neither presented before him nor signed by the petitioner before him and therefore, he could not say as to who has signed at place 'C' to 'D' on Ex. C-7 and therefore, it cannot be said that the document Ex. C-7 the form for getting the voter's identity card prepared filed before the Election Commission, was filled by the petitioner himself. In absence of this, it cannot be said that the document Ex. C-7 was signed and produced by the petitioner before the Election Commission. There being no other evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner himself admitted his age to be more than 18 years before the Returning Officer or the Election Commissioner. The medical evidence is of no help to the non-petitioner for the reason given herein above that there may be a variance of two years and even according to the statement of CW-1 Dr. Paras Khinchi and CW-2 Dr. Ambadan Rao, the age of the petitioner on the relevant date of examination i.e. 9.5.05 was not more than 19 years which is worked out from the date of occurrence. If the variance of two years is taken in favour of the petitioner in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajindra Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh 2002 SCC (Cri) 333 then the age of the petitioner on the relevant date of occurrence would work out to be less than 18 years.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Mangala Mishra@Dawa Tamang@Jack vs State Of Sikkim on 13 October, 2018

In Rajinder Chandra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another12 the Supreme Court would reiterate the principle laid down in Arnit Das (supra) and hold that while dealing with the question of determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is a juvenile or not, a hypertechnical approach 10 (1997) 8 SCC 720 11 1984 Supp SCC 228 12 (2002) 2 SCC 287 Crl.A.No.36 of 2017 25 Mangala Mishra @ Dawa Tamang @ Jack vs. State of Sikkim should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. That if two views may be possible on the said evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases.
Sikkim High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 8 - M M Rai - Full Document

Md. Somesh Ali vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2003

In the case of Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr., reported in (2002) 2 SCC 287, it has been held that the Court should not adopt a hyper-technical approach in that case, when an accused is claimed to be a juvenile and when there is a marginal difference on the question as to whether he was or he was not a juvenile, the benefit of such an uncertainty should be given to the accused. In other words, in border line cases, when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence produced, the view, which is in favour of the juvenile accused, should be adopted. The relevant observations may be seen at paras 4 and 5, which read as follows :
Gauhati High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - I Ansari - Full Document

Ravi-Ul-Islam vs State (Nct) on 5 May, 2006

8. Before parting with this case, I would also like to point out that the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. and Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. JT 2005 (2) 271 to indicate that the said Act is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of the juvenile and the Act must be construed as such. In this line, when Section 12 makes it mandatory for a juvenile, even if he is "apparently a juvenile" to be released on bail, then this Court and all the courts dealing with such a situation must give full meaning to the provisions of the said Section as also the object of the Act. Bail has to be granted to a juvenile, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force which includes the NDPS Act also except for the conditions mentioned in Section 12 itself which, if one examines the same, are also to prevent any damage to the juvenile. The idea behind Section 12 being that the juvenile must be released on bail unless releasing him on bail would be detrimental to him or would entirely defeat the ends of justice.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next