Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Rana Vishal Chandubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2023

State Of Gujarat vs Chandubha Manubhai on 13 February, 2013

Mr. H. K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court to a decision of this court in the case of Gopal Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008(3) GLR 2026, wherein, this court has held that the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be followed by an officer of the Electricity Board detecting the offence; not following the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code is an irregularity; the prosecution case, if it is otherwise credible, cannot be thrown out on the ground of irregularity; that in respect of an offence of theft of electricity, the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case; and that Rojkam by the officer detecting the offence is admissible in evidence, as it is not a statement before the police. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the above-referred judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Aniruddhsinh Mahipatsinh on 15 February, 2013

1. Mr. H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court to a decision of this court in the case of Gopal Chandubhai Rana vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 (3) GLR 2026, wherein this court has held that the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be followed by an officer of the Electricity Board detecting the offence; not following the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code is an irregularity; the prosecution case, if it is otherwise credible, cannot be thrown out on the ground of irregularity; that in respect of an offence of theft of electricity, the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case; and that Rojkam by the officer detecting the offence is admissible in evidence, as it is not a statement before the police. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the above-referred judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Gulabsinh Mahipatsinh on 12 February, 2013

1. Mr. H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat , 2008(3) GLR 2026, wherein, this Court has held that the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be followed by an officer of the Electricity Board detecting the offence; not following the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code is an irregularity; the prosecution case, if it is otherwise credible, cannot be thrown out on the ground of irregularity; that in respect of an offence of theft of electricity, the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case; and that Rojkam by the officer detecting the offence is admissible in evidence, as it is not a statement before the police. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the above-referred judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Nareshbhai Gurunamal on 12 February, 2013

1. Mr. H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat , 2008(3) GLR 2026, wherein, this Court has held that the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be followed by an officer of the Electricity Board detecting the offence; not following the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code is an irregularity; the prosecution case, if it is otherwise credible, cannot be thrown out on the ground of irregularity; that in respect of an offence of theft of electricity, the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case; and that Rojkam by the officer detecting the offence is admissible in evidence, as it is not a statement before the police. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the above-referred judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Manharba Batuksinh on 12 February, 2013

1. Mr. H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat , 2008(3) GLR 2026, wherein, this Court has held that the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be followed by an officer of the Electricity Board detecting the offence; not following the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code is an irregularity; the prosecution case, if it is otherwise credible, cannot be thrown out on the ground of irregularity; that in respect of an offence of theft of electricity, the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case; and that Rojkam by the officer detecting the offence is admissible in evidence, as it is not a statement before the police. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the above-referred judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Anopsing @ Anubha Gagaji on 12 February, 2013

1. Mr. H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat , 2008(3) GLR 2026, wherein, this Court has held that the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be followed by an officer of the Electricity Board detecting the offence; not following the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code is an irregularity; the prosecution case, if it is otherwise credible, cannot be thrown out on the ground of irregularity; that in respect of an offence of theft of electricity, the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case; and that Rojkam by the officer detecting the offence is admissible in evidence, as it is not a statement before the police. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the above-referred judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Suresh Kalidas on 12 February, 2013

1. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat , 2008(3) GLR 2026, wherein, this Court has held that the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be followed by an officer of the Electricity Board detecting the offence; not following the procedure under sections 99 to 101 of the Code is an irregularity; the prosecution case, if it is otherwise credible, cannot be thrown out on the ground of irregularity; that in respect of an offence of theft of electricity, the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case; and that Rojkam by the officer detecting the offence is admissible in evidence, as it is not a statement before the police. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the above-referred judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document
1