Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 390 (3.55 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab & Anr vs Surjit Singh & Ors on 4 August, 2009

State vs Surjit on 29 April, 2024

There was one hardware shop and public persons were passing by. Some public persons were asked to join the proceedings but they refused to join the same and left the spot. IO came at the spot at about 05.15 PM on his motorcycle. He went to PS with Tehrir at about 05.45 P.M. on his motorcycle. He came back to the spot after the registration of FIR at about 06.20 P.M. on his motorcycle alone. No notice was served upon public persons for non-joining the proceedings. His statement was FIR No.: 543/2021 State versus Surjit Page No. 3 of 12 recorded at the spot. He do not remember which document was prepared by the IO before tehrir was taken to PS and after the registration of FIR. Seal was not handed over to him after use by the IO. The distance between the spot and PS is about 3 kms. He and IO had left their motorcycle at the spot as they went to the PS in police gypsy. He had offered his search before search of accused was conducted. He denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the accused or at the instance of accused or that all the proceedings had been conducted while sitting at PS. iii. ASI Rajender Prasad was examined as PW2. He stated that on 15.07.2021, he was posted at PS Dabri as HC. On that day, upon receiving DD No. 102A regarding apprehension of accused along with illegal weapon. After that, he went to the spot i.e. C-2, Nala Road, Mahavir Enclave, Part II, where he met Ct. Parveen and asked 4-5 public person to join the investigation but they refused to join the same by stating their personal reasons and without stating their names. Ct. Parveen handed over abovesaid case property and accused to him. He prepared sketch for buttondar knife already Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point X, seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW- 1/B bearing his signature at point X, recorded statement of Ct. Parveen which is already Ex. PW1/C (bearing his signature at point X) and prepared the rukka already Ex. PW1/D bearing his signature at point X. After that he handed over seal to Ct. Parveen and gave him rukka for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to PS and got the FIR registered, after sometime, he came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh on 26 October, 2016

(i) It is apparent, that this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh32, did hold, that the determination rendered in paragraph 55 of the judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case28, was in exercise of the power vested in this Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. But the above observation does not lead, to the conclusion or the inference, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not applicable to temporary employees. In fact, there is a positive take-away for the temporary employees. The Constitution Bench would, in the above situation, be deemed to have concluded, that to do complete justice to the cause of temporary employees, they should be paid the minimum wage of a regular employee, discharging the same duties. It needs to be noticed, that on 93 the subject of pay parity, the findings recorded by this Court in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case28, were limited to the conclusions recorded in paragraph 55 thereof (which we have dealt with above, while dealing with the case law, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016

(i) It is apparent, that this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh32, did hold, that the determination rendered in paragraph 55 of the judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case28, was in exercise of the power vested in this Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. But the above observation does not lead, to the conclusion or the inference, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not applicable to temporary employees. In fact, there is a positive take-away for the temporary employees. The Constitution Bench would, in the above situation, be deemed to have concluded, that to do complete justice to the cause of temporary employees, they should be paid the minimum wage of a regular employee, discharging the same duties. It needs to be noticed, that on the subject of pay parity, the findings recorded by this Court in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case28, were limited to the conclusions recorded in paragraph 55 thereof (which we have dealt with above, while dealing with the case law, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’).
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 2405 - J S Khehar - Full Document

State vs . Surjit on 4 April, 2011

Principles of criminal jurisprudence which govern the trial of criminal cases do not permit the FIR No.747/04 8 State Vs. Surjit ignoring or brushing aside such a big jerk given to the prosecution. In this view of the matter, it would not be safe to act upon the testimony of ASI Hari Prakash (PW3) and Constable Salam Mohammed (PW6). Learned Additional Sessions Judge has obviously not kept the aforesaid infirmities in view while dealing with the evidence of the said witnesses. Eliminating the evidence of ASI Hari Prakash (PW3) and Constable Salam Mohammed (PW6) there remains nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No:313/2005 vs Surjit Singh on 21 September, 2011

6. PW-3 HC Chain Sukh stated that on 28.04.2005 he along 4 FIR NO:313/2005 State V. Surjit Singh with Ct. Hari Kishan while patrolling at Mahavir Enclave received secret information that one Surjit is selling liquor in the meanwhile HC Raj Kumar also joined them who had the similar information. Request was made to public persons but none came forward. Thereafter, HC Raj Kumar who was in civil dress was sent as decoy customer with rupees twenty note and on his signal accused present in court today was apprehended. One purchased quarter bottle was handed over to HC Raj Kumar. Rs.20/- note was recovered from the possession of accused. One katta containing 44 quarter bottles of mastana masaledar was also recovered was given at police station and HC Ramesh reached at the spot to whom the accused, case property was handed over. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. One quarter bottle was taken as sample and case property was sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B. IO prepared tehrir Ex.PW3/C and he got the case registered.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 July, 2024

(i) It is apparent, that this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, 2009(3) S.C.T. 816 : (2009) 9 SCC 514, did hold, that the determination rendered in paragraph 55 of the judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case, was in exercise of the power vested in this Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. But the above observation does not lead, to the conclusion or the inference, that the principle of `equal pay for equal work' is not applicable to temporary employees. In fact, there is a positive take-away for the temporary employees. The Constitution Bench would, in the above situation, be deemed to have concluded, that to do complete justice to the cause of temporary employees, they should be paid the minimum wage of a regular employee, discharging the same duties.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P Jain - Full Document

State vs . Surjit Singh on 20 November, 2012

17. Furthermore, IO and complainant both admitted in their cross- examination that the spot was heavily crowded area. It is note worthy that despite availability of public persons I.O.s had not made any serious endeavour to join the public persons in investigation of this case. This failure on their part goes to suggest that they did not make sincere efforts to join the passers-by in the police proceedings. Also as per rukka IO did not serve written notice to the passersby who refused to join the police proceedings. At least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, IO could have very well served the passers-by with notice in writing requiring them to join the police proceedings or to face action u/s 187 IPC in as much as in the present case there was no possibility of accused escaping FIR No. 760/03 Page 5 of 7 State vs. Surjit Singh his apprehension / arrest or crime going undetected in as much as by the said time, accused stood already apprehended by the police. Failure on the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts for joining independent public witnesses in the proceedings when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution in view of the following case laws.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next