Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal vs Kailash Chandra Pandey on 13 October, 2004

Shiju.M.Thankachan vs The State Of Kerala on 27 December, 2006

8. It is also settled law that mere recovery of tainted amount from the possession of the accused alone is not sufficient to attract the offence, unless it is proved by Crl. A. No.60 of 2007 11 the prosecution, the demand and acceptance of the amount. Only if the demand and acceptance are proved by the prosecution, then only the presumption under Section 20 of the Act will be attracted. The burden on the accused is not so onerous as that on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and he can prove the same by preponderance of probabilities as well. This was so held in the decisions reported in Suraj Mal v. State of Delhi Administration (AIR 1979 (SC) 1408) and A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587], Parameswaran Pillai R. (Dr.) v. State of Kerala (2011(4) KHC 411), State of West Bengal v. Kailash Chandra Pandey (AIR 2005 SC 119), State of Andrapradesh v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy [(2000) 9 SCC 752], Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1964 SC 575), Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1975 SC 1432), Mahesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (1974 Crl.L.J. 509), Balakrishnan v. State Crl. A. No.60 of 2007 12 by Special Police Establishment, Madras Branch (1994 Crl.L.J. 1258), State of Assam v. Krishna Rao, M.D. Bajid (AIR 1973 SC 28), Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1976 SC 1497), Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1976 SC 294), State of Tamil Nadu v Rajendran (2000 SCC (Cri) 40), Sitaramacharya v. Gururajacharya (AIR 1997 SC 806), Sarup Chand v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 1441), Ayyasami v. State of Tamil Nadu (1992 Crl.L.J. 608), Mohammed Nazeeruddin v. State of Andhrapradesh (1994 Crl.L.J. 2304), V. Sebastian v. State (1988 Crl.L.J. 1150), M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala (JT 1995 (3) SC 367), Laxmi Narain Goyal v. State of Rajasthan (1997 (3) Crimes 541), Prakash Chand Jain v. State (1968 Crl.L.J.391), Sultan Ahmed v. State of Bihar (1974 Crl.L.J. 895), State of Kerala and Another v. C.P.Rao (AIR 2012 SC (Crl.)
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.B.I. vs . Raj Kumar Verma on 28 April, 2012

In State CBI Vs. Raj Kumar Verma CC No. 36/11 Page 40 of 7 of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chanra Pandey, AIR 2005 SC 119, it was inter alia held that cosmetic contradiction in statements of witnesses cannot improbablise the prosecution story. The basic Law is that the contradictions which damage the roots of the case, can be taken into account. The minor contradictions are bound to occur and the same are liable to be rejected.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sat Paul vs State Of West Bengal on 31 March, 2006

38. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am clearly of opinion that the arguments canvassed before me by Mr. Mitra relating to discrepancies have not at all shattered the prosecution case and all these discrepancies after a gap of 10 years are probable, expected and ignorable being minor discrepancies and not vital. There are catena of decisions to the effect that minor discrepancies which are not vital or fatal should always be ignored. The pronciples of law on this point is well-settled and I do not like to refer too many decisions to make my judgment lengthy; still I refer some of the decisions, namely, State of West Bengal v. Kailash Chandra Pandey reported in 2005 Cr. L.J. 135, Angnoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Banwari v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 Cr. L.J. 161, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat and Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab .
Calcutta High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dahyabhai M. Bariya vs State Of Gujarat on 17 August, 2006

A decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Kailash Chhandra Pandey as reported in 2005 (1) GLH 248 is relied upon to contend that when the trial Court had an opportunity to observe the witness, the appreciation of the trial Court giving credit to such witness should not be brushed a side lightly. It was contended that minor discrepancies and cosmetic contradictions must not be given weightage to discard the evidence of credible witnesses. It was urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - J R Vora - Full Document

I.D No.02401R0929542608, Cbi vs G.S. Raju Decided On on 16 November, 2013

118. Ld. Defence counsel made reference to Judgment of the Calcutta High Court "Kailash Chandra Pandey V State of West Bengal 2003 Cri L J 4286" to submit that the since the work of the complainant had already been done there was no reason for the accused to have demanded money form the complainant without realizing this Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court had been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Judgment In AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 119 "State of West Bengal v. Kailash Chandra Pandey" . In this case one of the reasons for the acquittal of the accused was amount covered by impugned bills of complainant contractor had already been released was not accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant part of the Judgment reads "It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the bills of the complainant for the period in question have already been passed and payments made. That may be so, but this is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case."
Delhi District Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravindranath Maganbhai Prajapati vs State Of ... on 18 November, 2014

(7) State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra Pandey reported in (2004)12 SCC 29 wherein the Supreme Court has held that minor discrepancies and contradictions are not fatal to the case of the prosecution so as to interfere in order of conviction by the High Court and thereby conviction and sentence by trial Court was confirmed. It is further held that the appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the trial Court except for cogent reasons and thereby acquittal by the High Court was set- aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - S G Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next