Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Tapan Kuman Mandal & Anr on 27 April, 2012

State vs . on 20 March, 2014

The complainant in his examination­in­chief deposed that he used to get prepared gold jewellery from his workers at Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar and Chandni Chowk. There were three workers with him who used to prepare gold jewellery at the time of incident namely Arun Kumar Mandal, Tapas Mandal and Sanjit Rishi. That on 19.04.2008 he gave 700 gms of gold to the aforesaid three workers for preparing jewellery, who used to prepare jewellery on the first floor of the house of complainant. On 21.04.2008 at 6:00 AM, he noticed that all the aforesaid three persons were missing with the 700 gms gold given by him. He made a complaint in this regard to SHO, PS Gandhi Nagar on 22.04.2008 Ex. PW 4/A but no action was taken by the police. He made another complaint on 18.08.2009 and 12.10.2010, which are Ex. PW 4/B and Ex. PW 4/C. When no action was taken by the police he filed an application in the court u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. on 31.01.2011 which is Ex. PW 4/D and the complaint case is Ex. PW 4/E. He made another complaint to SHO, PS Gandhi Nagar on 10.02.2011 which is Ex. PW 4/F. Thereafter, Arun Mandal was arrested from a shop namely Radha Moham Jewellers, GIP Colony, Naya Banchh Road, Hawra, PS Bankra at his instance vide arrest memo Ex. PW 3/A and the personal FIR No. 42/2011 State Vs. Tapas Mandal & Ors. Page No. 4 / 13 SPS Laler, ACMM (East) search of accused was also conducted in his presence vide Ex. PW 3/B. He lastly deposed that neither the jewellery nor gold was recovered from the possession of accused and that disclosure statement of accused Arun Mandal was recorded which is Ex. PW 3/C. It may be noted that besides the complainant (PW­4) there is no other witness to the alleged entrustment of gold by the complainant to the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dilshad Khan vs State on 4 January, 2013

In support, he relied upon State Vs. Tapan Kumar Mandal 2012 (3) JCC 2205 DHC. In the present case, date of kidnapping is 25.09.1991 and boy was recovered on 27.09.1991. So, the kidnapped boy remained in the house of accused Hari Chand for two days. Other incriminating circumstance against him is that he is the brother in law of third accused Mukesh (acquitted by the trial Court). PW1 has deposed specifically when he reached to the house of accused in the company of police, accused Hari Chand as well as his son were found there. He deposed about another person Mukesh also. He did not state in examination in chief and was not cross examined by the accused if any other person was also present there at that time or not. In the cited case, the kidnapped child was not recovered from the house of the respondent and rather, he was recovered from the custody of co­accused when they were making a telephone call from an STD booth.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1