Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Jagdish Singh And Ors. on 26 April, 1988

State vs . : Jagdish Singh on 26 August, 2011

But PW-7 and PW-8, both brother of complainant were claimed that they had gone to the factory in question though neither of them had not mentioned the date. Reading all testimonies together does not make things clear rather make them opaque. These testimonies establish complainant had gone to factory in question on said dates but after that who went to there is totally unclear. Complainant claims that his wife and Vinod Sood alongwith HC Fatah Singh came on both dates but his FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 7 of 8 wife states that she went on only 17.12.1995. None of them claims that other family members also came there at any point of time where as PW-6 and PW-7 claim to none also visited factory in question. Hence, the fact who went to factory in question on said dates. The effect of failure to establish the fact as to who went toe factory in question on said dates is that their version regarding allegation against accused persons are not reliable and cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the said Vinod Sood has not been examined despite the fact that he was claimed both by complainant and his wife to visit factory in question with wife of complainant. Further the incident took place on 17.12.1995 and complaint and FIR was made on 24.12.1995 which shows that there is delay of seven days. This delay has not been explained and accounted for reasonably especially when police was already informed on 17.12.1995 and one police official had gone on alleged date of incident. Therefore, above discussion shows that prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, extending the benefit of doubt to accused, all accused persons acquitted of the offence under Section 342/347/506-II/34 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish Singh on 1 November, 2018

In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable  u/s. 188 IPC.   No previous conviction  has been  alleged or State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; PS PN 2/2 proved against convict.  The convict is not involved in any such case, as stated by him.  Convict is having a family to support.   Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused belongs to the poor strata of the society, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be met if the convict is admonished. Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kumari Shaima Jafari vs Irphan @ Gulfam & Ors on 11 December, 2012

“It appears that the appeal was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of acquittal dated 24-5-1989 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Case No. 153 of 1986. The said sessions case was filed against the respondent-accused under Section 302 read with Sections 307 and 34 IPC. The leave application was dismissed summarily without indicating any reason and the consequential order of dismissal of appeal was also passed without indicating any reason. It is really unfortunate that the appeal was disposed of without giving any reason whatsoever. On 26- 4-1988, against a similar order of dismissal in limine passed by the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdish Singh1 (an appeal) was moved before this Court and a three Judges' Bench of this Court deprecated such order disposing of the appeal without giving any reason. Unfortunately, a similar improper order has been passed in this case. To say the least, it is a sorry state of affairs. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal in limine and send the matter back to the High Court with a direction to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - D Misra - Full Document

Kumari Shaima Jafari vs Irphan @ Gulfam & Ors on 11 December, 2012

“It appears that the appeal was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of acquittal dated 24-5-1989 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Case No. 153 of 1986. The said sessions case was filed against the respondent-accused under Section 302 read with Sections 307 and 34 IPC. The leave application was dismissed summarily without indicating any reason and the consequential order of dismissal of appeal was also passed without indicating any reason. It is really unfortunate that the appeal was disposed of without giving any reason whatsoever. On 26- 4-1988, against a similar order of dismissal in limine passed by the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdish Singh1 (an appeal) was moved before this Court and a three Judges' Bench of this Court deprecated such order disposing of the appeal without giving any reason. Unfortunately, a similar improper order has been passed in this case. To say the least, it is a sorry state of affairs. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal in limine and send the matter back to the High Court with a direction to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

Jagdish Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 9 January, 2025

9. Resultantly, present petition succeeds and Charge Sheet No. 133/2010 dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure No. 2) as well as the Case No. 2907 of 2010; titled State vs. Jagdish Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 337 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Bhinga, District Shrawasti pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti, and the entire proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaagdish Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another on 23 August, 2023

6. In view thereof, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of the compromise dated 01-12-2009, which was duly admitted by the opposite party no.2 prior to his death. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Gurjar & Anr. (2019) 5 SCC 570 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 529 of 2009 (State Vs. Jagdish Singh), arising out of case crime no. 156 of 2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Rura, district Kanpur Dehat, pending before the Vth Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Kanpur Dehat are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next