Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 677 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar vs Murad Ali Khan, Farukh Salauddin & ... on 10 October, 1988

State vs . Farukh Etc. on 28 March, 2011

PW3 further elicited that he had not seen the occurrence SC No. 38/08 33/47 State Vs. Farukh etc. as he had stated in his examination in chief for which he explained, he had so stated on the asking of the police officer outside the court. PW3 stated that he had sustained injuries due to pelting of stones by someone whom he had not seen. PW3 was re­examined by Ld. Addl. PP but he stood his ground saying he had not seen the occurrence and denied of the fact of injuries caused on the person of Momin, Niazuddin and Qayyum by accused or that he had changed his version intentionally due to compromise. PW3 even stated that the dandas and sarias, Ex P1 to Ex P5 were so identified by him in his examination in chief as the weapons of offences on the asking of the police officer and there was no specific mark on the dandas and the sarias, while they were commonly available in the market.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Salauddin S/O Ismail, on 31 July, 2013

On 06.03.2004 accused Aslam was arrested in case FIR NO.132/04 U/s 21 of NDPS Act and he made Disclosure Statement regarding committing dacoity in the present case alongwith other co­accused (State Vs. Salauddin etc.) (SC No.73/2012) Page No.3 of pages 27 persons. On 04.04.2004 accused Parvez was arrested in case FIR No.210/04 U/s 21 of NDPS Act by ASI Bhupender and in that case he made Disclosure Statement regarding his and his other co­accused involvement in the present case and thereafter, in pursuance of his above said Disclosure Statement, he led the police party to Saboli Mour near Madina Masjid at the house of accused Salauddin and accordingly he was apprehended at the instance of accused Parvez and thereafter, accused Salauddin got recovered one golden colour necklace, three golden colour chain, one golden colour tops having white nug and three pairs of golden colour ear rings without nug from his house and the said articles were seized by the IO. Accused Salauddin disclosed that the above said articles were the part of robbed articles and the same were of his share, which were robbed by him alongwith co­accused persons. Accused Salauddin was arrested by SI Ajay Kumar in case FIR No.210/04 regarding the recovery of above said articles U/s 412/34 IPC of PS Nand Nagari and intimation regarding the same was given to PS Shahdara. Co accused Ayub was also arrested in case FIR No.142/04 U/s 21 of NDPS Act and he made Disclosure Statement that he alongwith other co­accused persons committed decoity in the present case. HC Shiv Kumar also joined in the investigating with SI Ajay Kumar, who arrested accused Salauddin and Parvez in case FIR No.210/04 U/s 412/34 IPC. Further on 04.03.2004 SI Kashmira from PS Nanad Nagari got recorded DD No.61B regarding arrest of co­accused Naushad (since expired) in case FIR No.115/04 and regarding his Disclosure Statement and after receiving the above said DD, ASI Yogender went to PS Nand Nagari and collected the Disclosure Statement of accused Naushad from SI Kashmira.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Others vs . State Of Maharashtra" Reported In ... on 10 April, 2023

10.1 PW 1 Rohit Verma being the complainant in the present case deposed that on 29.06.2022, when he was in his house, he received a call from security guard of the society, that one person was taking away his blue colour bicycle. Thereafter, he immediately went to main gate of the society where the security guard Bharat had caught hold of FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 5/17 one person alongwith his blue colour bicycle. Thereafter, he made 100 number call and police came and took the accused Farukh whose name he had come to know later which was disclosed by security guard Bharat alongwith his bicycle to the PS. Thereafter, he went to the PS and his statement was recorded Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he alongwith IO came back to the spot and the site plan was prepared at his instance and accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, his bicycle was also seized by seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. The police had also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/D. Police had also recorded his supplementary statement. PW 1 in his testimony correctly identified the case property through photographs and also the accused present in the court.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Saluddin on 26 May, 2012

In the present case the eye State v. Salauddin FIR No. 232/1997 Total Pages 12 witness/injured PW8 has categorically testified that when he was returning alongwith his 2 colleagues viz. Janvi and Kartik Panna lal, they saw a bus bearing no.DL 1P 8411 being driven by the accused who was duly identified by the said witness at a very high speed and the bus after hitting all 3 of them hit with the wall of the college and broke the wall and the electricity pole. Mr. Kartik Panna Lal died in the accident and the said witness PW8 and his colleague Janvi sustained severe injuries. Even PW1 testified that the accused who was present in the court on that day was apprehended from the spot itself. Thus, there is no dispute that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a public place.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Farukh on 27 February, 2024

It is pertinent to highlight that PW1 Yogendar Singh, who is alleged to be the eye witness of the accident in question, deposed that he had not seen the driver of the offending dumper as driver of the said dumper fled from the spot. There is no other eye witnesses of the accident. PW2 and PW3 are the IOs of the present case, who conducted investigation in the present matter. They are formal witnesses and not the eye witnesses. Their State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 9/10 testimony cannot be made the basis to convict the accused of the offences charged against him. Since his identity could not be established, their testimony being formal in nature, the accused cannot be presumed to be guilty of offences in absence of sufficient evidence of the eye witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ali Khan. on 16 January, 2014

In case Mohd. Hasim vs. State VI AD (Delhi) 569 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M S A Siddiqui) it was observed that documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR NO.186/07 PS Anand Vihar PAGE 6/7 STATE vs. ALI KHAN.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Farukh Ahmed on 2 March, 2007

13. It is not in doubt that company of the accused deals with export of arms. The company has good reputation in the market. It is not expected from it that its employees will indulge in illegal activities related to arms. It has specifically come in the evidence that the accused was having some documents Page 5 of 6 State Vs Farukh Ahmed FIR No. 229/87 with him when he was apprehended. The facts of criminal appeal 44/79 are quite similar to the present case. Though the decision is not binding, yet it can be looked into for ascertaining the fact that there was a notification of District Magistrate, Delhi exempting requirement of licence for export of arms. In that case also, some gupties were recovered from employee of the present company and which was also meant for delivery to Miami i.e for export. It was held by the appellate court that by virtue of notification of 1969, the requirement of licence was not there as the arms were meant for export and the appellant was acquitted. In my considered opinion this judgment does show that there existed such a notification. This judgment can also be relied upon to prove the existance of the notification and its contents. Thus it stands proved that there was such notification. Considered so the accused has not committed any offence as he was carrying the arms which were meant for export and there was no licencing requirement. Documents brought on record in defence evidence also show that the knives were meant for export which leave no doubt that knives were for export.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Riyasat Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2025

In view thereof, chargesheet and entire proceedings of Case No.328442 of 2024 (State vs. Murad Ali & Others) under Sections 2, 9, 39, 48, 49(B), 50, 51, 57 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 52 of Indian Forest Act and Section 7 and 55 of Biodiversity Conversation Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur arising out of Forest Crime Report dated 17.05.2024, Range Case No. 10 of 2024-25 Range Tilkoniya, Beat-Rajahi, District Gorakhpur, are hereby set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Ningombam Ranjit Singh And Anr. vs Smt. Yumnam Premila Devi on 21 July, 2005

Such being the settled position of law, I are of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan : 1989 Cri LJ 1005 (supra) is mis-appreciated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 22-6-2005. Accordingly, the impugned judgment arid order dated 22-6-2005 is set aside.
Gauhati High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - T N Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next