Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Assam vs Ajgar Ali And Ors. on 24 July, 1986

State vs . on 5 February, 2010

8. Other point of argument raised by defence side is that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is pointed out that PW1 has mentioned that 8 workers were working in his factory; that work of ironing of clothes was used to get done from outside State vs. Ajgar @ Asgar; FIR No. 409/08 7 and police came at the spot within 45 minutes, whereas, PW5 has deposed that 5/6 workers were working in the factory; that they used to iron the stitched clothes and police came at the spot within 10 minutes. It was also mentioned that though the site plan was stated to have been prepared by IO at the instance of complainant though the site plan does not bear his signature. In my view, above mentioned minor discrepancies do not have bearing on the decision of the case on merit particularly when the eye witnesses PW1, PW5 and other official witnesses have supported the prosecution case on all material aspects.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Criminal Case/372/2005 on 28 November, 2013

3. Perusal of the documents placed on record by the investigating officer shows that the owner of the vehicle is one Smt. Krishna Kumari. She has neither been cited as a witness nor her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the IO to show that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. As there was no witness to the identity of the accused and to his presence on the spot, hence it would have been futile exercise to examine the remaining witnesses who are either police witnesses or witnesses of formal nature. Therefore prosecution evidence was closed after FIR No. 372/05 State v. Asgar Ali page no. 5 of 8 stopping the proceedings u/s. 258 Cr.P.C. As no incriminating evidence against the accused was found from the version of the Pws, hence statement of accused was dispensed with. The matter was listed for final arguments.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Asgar Ali on 26 March, 2014

15. Apart from this, their presence at the spot is not proved. If they had departed from PS for patrolling duty the entry to this effect must exist in the Roznamancha but that has not been proved, raising an adverse presumption against the prosecution U/s 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that if the said Roznamancha had been produced it would have not State Vs. Asgar Ali 4/6 FIR no. 208/04 shown their departure as all.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Page No.# 1/3 vs Union Of India And 5 Ors on 27 January, 2025

2. Call for the records in original from the office of the Foreigners Tribunal (1 st), Morigaon pertaining to F.T. (C) Case No. 815/2006 (Police Reference I.M.(D)T. Case No. 165/1999, State of Assam Vs. Md. Haidor Ali), decided on 30.05.2012 as well as Case No. F.T. (C) 462/2010 (Reference I.M.(D)T. Case No. 914/2002, State of Assam Vs. Haidar Ali & Others), decided on 08.03.2018 forthwith.
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M R Pathak - Full Document
1