Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (1.65 seconds)
Documents citing V.L. Tresa vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2001

Himanshu Moorjani vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 May, 2002

14. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in V.L. Tresa's case (supra) and Prakash Dhawal Khairnar's case (supra) and in view of the law laid down by Delhi High Court and M.P. High Court, referred above, I am of the considered view that the interpretation of language used in Section 201 IPC and the law laid down by the Gujrat High Court in Jogta Kikla's case (supra) that "when Section 201 uses the expression "whoever causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear," it refers to a person who causes the evidence of actual commission of the offence to disappear and not to person who causes the disappearance of evidence as to by whom the offence was committed and made a distinction between evidence of commission of offence and the evidence as to by whom the offence was committed, does not hold good and is of no help to the accused petitioner. It must be held that a person who attempts to screen the offender from legal punishment and for that, causes to disappear or destroy the evidence of offence is liable to be held guilty for offence under Section 201 IPC. In other words, the expression "whoever causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear", includes the evidence as to by whom the offence was committed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sujith S/O Kalesan vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007

10. The above decision was upheld by the Apex Court after detailed consideration in V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala . The Supreme Court has also held that having regard to the language used, mere suspicion would not be sufficient; there must be cogent evidence available on record that the accused has knowledge or has reason to believe that the offence has been committed.
Kerala High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 3 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Jitender Nath vs Ram Phal Bansal & Anr on 17 May, 2010

In Madesha (supra), the Supreme Court quoted the following extract from its earlier decision in V.L.Tresa V. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 "Having regard to the language used, mere suspicion would not be sufficient. There must be available on record cogent evidence that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen another known or unknown. The foremost necessity being that the accused must have the knowledge or have reason to believe that such an offence has been committed.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - V Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next