Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1133 (7.30 seconds)
Documents citing Noor Aga vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 9 July, 2008

Inayatkhan @ Ilyaskhan Bismillahkhan ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 February, 2015

16. Thus, while explaining the conflict between the decision in the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra) and Noor Aga (supra) at a point of time when the issue was not referred to a larger Page 21 of 22 R/CR.MA/18996/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Bench, the Division Bench has taken the view that the ratio in the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra) has not been diluted in the decision of Noor Aga, nor by necessary implication it could be said that the decision in Kanhaiyalal (supra) stands over-ruled.
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Senior Intelligence Officer vs Bhimlal Pandit on 3 March, 2025

27. Therefore, the learned Judge had arrived at a irresistible conclusion that the case against Accused-1 to Accused-4 regarding conscious possession had not been proved as per the reported ruling in 2008 AIR SCW 5964 in the case of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Another; and AIR 2000 Supreme Court 821 in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat; and CDJ 2019 MHC 1446 in the case of Intelligence Officer Vs. B.Balatheepan.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Okocha Mike vs Union Of India And Anr on 14 March, 2019

31 It is argued that Standing Orders are not followed while drawing samples. For this purpose, reliance is placed on judgment in the matter of Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra) wherein it is held by the Honourable Apex Court that guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied with, but also in a case involving penal proceedings vis-a-vis a departmental proceeding, rigours of such guidelines may be insisted upon. Standing Order No.1 of 1989 and more particularly Clause No.2.9 thereof deals with procedure for storage of samples. As per this Standing Order, the sample in duplicate should be kept in heat-sealed plastic bag as it is convenient and safe. In the case in hand, four samples each weighing 5 grams were kept in polythene pouches with zipper lock and thereafter, those four polythene pouches were kept in a separate envelope which was sealed with "AIU Seal no.132". Therefore, it cannot be said that the guidelines regarding packing of the samples was not avk 57/61 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:29:35 ::: APPEAL-420-2013-APPA-323-2018-J.doc substantially followed by the prosecuting agency. Similarly, other clauses of this Standing Order No.1 of 1989 are also seen to have been substantially complied by the prosecuting agency, as reflected from evidence of PW1 Sanjay Kumar, Intelligence Officer. Therefore, case of the prosecution cannot be doubted on this aspect.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document

Okocha Mike vs Union Of India And Anr on 14 March, 2019

31 It is argued that Standing Orders are not followed while drawing samples. For this purpose, reliance is placed on judgment in the matter of Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra) wherein it is held by the Honourable Apex Court that guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied with, but also in a case involving penal proceedings vis-a-vis a departmental proceeding, rigours of such guidelines may be insisted upon. Standing Order No.1 of 1989 and more particularly Clause No.2.9 thereof deals with procedure for storage of samples. As per this Standing Order, the sample in duplicate should be kept in heat-sealed plastic bag as it is convenient and safe. In the case in hand, four samples each weighing 5 grams were kept in polythene pouches with zipper lock and thereafter, those four polythene pouches were kept in a separate envelope which was sealed with "AIU Seal no.132". Therefore, it cannot be said that the guidelines regarding packing of the samples was not avk 57/61 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:29:25 ::: APPEAL-420-2013-APPA-323-2018-J.doc substantially followed by the prosecuting agency. Similarly, other clauses of this Standing Order No.1 of 1989 are also seen to have been substantially complied by the prosecuting agency, as reflected from evidence of PW1 Sanjay Kumar, Intelligence Officer. Therefore, case of the prosecution cannot be doubted on this aspect.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document

Dri vs Samson Ongera Omoro @ Samson Mokari ... on 4 June, 2016

62. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Aga vs State of Punjab & anr (supra) has observed that "It is also necessary to bear in mind that superficially case may have an ugly look and thereby prima­facie, shaking the conscience of any Court, but it is well settled that suspicion, however high may be, can under no DRI vs Samson Ongera Omoro @ Samson Mokari Ongera Page no. 43 of 45 SC No. 01A/2011 circumstances be held to be substitute for legal evidence."
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdeep Singh Parmar vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate Of ... on 21 November, 2024

23. Moreover, reiteratedly in terms of the expostulations of law made in "Noor Aga V. State of Punjab and another" Criminal Appeal No.1034 of 2008, decided on 09.07.2008, there was also a further requirement that the examined stuff which was re-enclosed in the cloth parcel(s) by the Chemical Analyst and whereons become affixed the seals of the FSL concerned, thus becoming initially returned to the Malkhana concerned, and thereafter becoming produced in Court, for the same becoming then shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned, rather for therebys the charge becoming efficaciously proven. However, in the instant case there is no such evidence.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next