Chhotu Kumar @ Chote Fauji vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 27 January, 2021
In Dharampal and Anr. v. State (supra), the Division Bench of
this Court has observed as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.54 seconds)The State Of Bihar vs Durgawati Devi on 10 September, 2021
In the light of the statutory provisions as laid
down under Section 293 of the CrPC, we are in complete
agreement with the views expressed by the Allahabad High
Court in Wali Muhammad (supra), and the Delhi High Court in
Chhotu Kumar (supra) and Dharampal (supra). We are also of
the view that the FSL report and its contents would be
admissible in evidence even without examining the author and
calling for its formal proof. However, the report falling under
the ambit of Section 293 of the CrPC need to be tendered in
evidence by some witness so that the same is exhibited and
connected with the case in hand. If it is not tendered in evidence
by any witness, the same cannot be used in evidence.
Durgawati Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 10 September, 2021
In the light of the statutory provisions as laid
down under Section 293 of the CrPC, we are in complete
agreement with the views expressed by the Allahabad High
Court in Wali Muhammad (supra), and the Delhi High Court in
Chhotu Kumar (supra) and Dharampal (supra). We are also of
the view that the FSL report and its contents would be
admissible in evidence even without examining the author and
calling for its formal proof. However, the report falling under
the ambit of Section 293 of the CrPC need to be tendered in
evidence by some witness so that the same is exhibited and
connected with the case in hand. If it is not tendered in evidence
by any witness, the same cannot be used in evidence.
Director General vs Smt. Ruma Chakraborty & Ors on 11 February, 2010
Relying upon the judgement passed in the case Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. &
Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 it has been contended
that no seniority and salary could be granted with retrospective effect. It has
been further urged that appointment always to be considered prospective in the
post in accordance with rules, relying upon the judgement passed in Direct
recruitment Case reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715.
Raj Kumar vs State Of Delhi on 26 March, 2015
49. PW-9 Inspector N.S. Minhas in his deposition corroborates the
testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 & PW-5. He, inter alia, stated that he got sent
the sample sealed parcel and the sample seal to FSL, and in due course of
time result was received. From the testimony of PW-9, it appears that the
same falls short of exhibiting the FSL report. The said report was not
tendered by the I.O. before the Court - to say that the FSL report produced
before the Court is the one received from FSL pertaining to the sample of
handwash of the appellant. The I.O. should have tendered the FSL report, if
it was the same as that received from the FSL in a sealed cover, regarding
the handwash test of the appellant. Not having done that, in view of the
judgment of this Court in Dharampal (supra), the FSL report is not
admissible in evidence. However, once again I am of the view that the
absence of the FSL report is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Unknown vs Kuldeep And Others on 26 July, 2024
In the case of Durgawati Devi (supra), Dharampal (supra)
and Anish Ahmed (supra), similar principles of law have been laid
down.
Unknown vs Kuldeep And Others on 26 July, 2024
In the case of Durgawati Devi (supra), Dharampal (supra)
and Anish Ahmed (supra), similar principles of law have been laid
down.
Unknown vs Kuldeep And Others on 26 July, 2024
In the case of Durgawati Devi (supra), Dharampal (supra)
and Anish Ahmed (supra), similar principles of law have been laid
down.
Unknown vs Kuldeep And Others on 26 July, 2024
In the case of Durgawati Devi (supra), Dharampal (supra)
and Anish Ahmed (supra), similar principles of law have been laid
down.
M/S Shree Sharda Domestic Fuels ... vs The Assistant Commissioner on 8 January, 2013
9. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that
after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of
non-production of any material before it by the petitioners
reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued
by the Revisional Authority which are re-produced in para 7
hereinabove, the Assessing Authority was under an obligation
to meet out all the aforesaid directions, but it appears that the
Assessing Officer impressed with the fact that no evidence was
produced before it by the assessee reiterated the earlier order,
while it was under an obligation to decide the matter as
directed by the Revisional Authority. When the important and
vital issues are not considered by the Assessing Officer, the
assessment order after remand cannot be sustained under the
law. In aforesaid circumstances, matter deserves to be
remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in
compliance of remand order (Annexure P/5). ( See Dharampal
Satyapal Limited and another vs. State of Bihar and Others
(2008) 7 SCC 19, para 6).