Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 361 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Shyam Sunder Prasad Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 July, 1980

Pawan Saraswat vs The State on 27 March, 2009

& (Shyam Sunder Vs. State etc.) Page no. 4 of pages 14 facing trial in that case. Instead of preferring any appeal/revision against the said summoning order, he has preferred the complainant case against the petitioners herein. There is not even a iota of word that the petitioner Shyam Sunder was having any access to the personal record and accounts of the respondent Hari Om or as to how the cheque in question could have come in the hands of the present petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the cheque was stolen by the petitioner and that it was handed over by the petitioner to the another petitioner Pawan Saraswat and once this important chain is missing then the summoning order against the petitioner u/s 379 IPC is bad in law. Similarly, the complainant miserably failed to make out any case U/s 465/471 IPC thereby showing that any sort of forgery has been committed by the petitioner and thus the summoning order against the petitioner U/s 465/471 IPC is also not made out. Similarly, so far as the section 182 IPC is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the complainant. Thus, the entire summoning order is wholly erroneous and as such the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Same is also not a speaking order.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunder vs . State on 28 November, 2013

identify the robbers, it can be inferred that PW2 could not identify the accused with certainty. However, he has also stated about presence of two accused at the time of committing robbery upon the complainant and thus, the evidence which has come on record regarding identity of the accused is doubtful. PW2 complainant failed to identify the appellant/ accused in the court by stating that on account of lapse of time, he is unable to identify the appellant as perpetrator of crime. Therefore, even if the appellant/ accused was arrested in the presence of PW2 by police, appellant cannot be held liable for commission of offence in question as PW2 failed to identify them in the court and substantive evidence is the examination in chief and cross examination of witnesses on oath and identification of appellant/ accused at the time of their arrest is immaterial if witness failed to identify accused in the court and law is well settled that identification of accused by witness in TIP who failed to identify accused in court cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. Therefore, the identity of appellant / accused is doubtful and they deserves the benefit of doubt and to the same effect is the ratio of case law relied upon by the counsel of the CA No.115/13 -:8:- 28.11.2013 Sunder Vs. State CA No. 115/13 appellant.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyam Sunder vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 21 February, 2014

Shyam Sunder v. State examine concerned person, who had allegedly taken the case property to FSL. The defence had taken plea that the case properties were planted upon the accused and therefore, it was duty of the prosecution to establish all chain of facts to enthuse confidence that not only the case properties were recovered at the alleged time, but were deposited in malkhana in sealed condition and were sent to FSL without any tempering. The absence of witness, who took the case property to FSL so as to state that whether the case property was in sealed condition or not, becomes relevant on account of delay in sending the case property to FSL. Another aspect of this case is that the IO i.e. PW-7 deposed that he had been given custody of the motorcycle as well and he had deposited the case property and motorcycle in malkhana. But this motorcycle was never summoned by the prosecution during trial of this case nor was its existence ever admitted by the defence. On the other hand, PW-6, who had brought register no.19 from police station, also did not say anything about deposit of motorcycle in malkhana.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gobi vs State Rep. By on 24 July, 2012

(iii) He would further rely upon the decision reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 1546 (Ram Gulam chaudhary and others v. State of Bihar) and submitted that where there were several witnesses who had given credible and believable evidence regarding place of occurrence, held, their evidence cannot be discarded merely because the investigating officer had not been examined when in the circumstances of the case the investigating officer could not have given any evidence as to the actual place of occurrence. So non-examination of investigating officer had not caused any prejudice to the accused/appellants. Hence, it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. It is appropriate to incorporate para-25 to 30, which are extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next