Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 216 (1.79 seconds)
Documents citing Jagdish Prasad Shastri vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 October, 1970

Halim Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2023

"9. Vadivelu Thevar case1 was referred to with approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. This Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single 18 witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 10 December, 2024

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel pointed out that earlier the petitioner had approached three times before this Court with the same prayer by filing Writ Petition No. 2614 (S/S) of 1997: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P.; writ petition Service Single No. 647 of 2015: Jaddish Prasad Mate Vs. State of U.P. and writ petition Service Single No. 6894 of 2021: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. with the same prayer and this court vide orders dated 21.04.1997, 26.02.2015 and 15.03.2021 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make afresh representation alongwith certified copy of the order to the opposite party No.4 (Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sultanpur). It appears that either the representation has not been served on the respondents or not decided by the competent authority. He further submits the instant writ petition is not maintainable for same cause of action.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad ( Ranwa Wale) vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 25 February, 2020

In such view of the matter, the learned appellate court/ learned District Judge, Jaluan, is directed to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in aid of the memo of appeal in Misc. No. 02 of 2020 (Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P. and others) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V Varma - Full Document

C/M Distt Cooperative Bank Ltd vs U.P. Cooperative Institutinal Service ... on 13 March, 2019

"It is settled by the catena of judgments that it is the duty of Enquiry Officer to hold ''Regular Enquiry'. Regular enquiry means that after reply to the charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer must record oral evidence with an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to adduce his evidence in defence. The opportunity of personal hearing should also be given/awarded to the delinquent employee. Even if the charged employee does not participate/co-operate in the enquiry, it shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte by recording oral evidence. For regular enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the purposes of proving of charges and documents, relied upon and opportunity to delinquent employee should also be given to produce his witness by fixing date, time and place. After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer is required to submit its report, stating therein all the relevant facts, evidence and statement of findings on each charge and reasons thereof, and thereafter, prior to imposing any punishment, the copy of the report should be provided to charged officer for the purposes of submission of his reply on the same. The punishment order should be reasoned and speaking and must be passed after considering entire material on record. (vide: Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (8) LCD 486; Avatar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1998 (16) LCD 199; Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad 1979 Vol.
Allahabad High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next