Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (2.27 seconds)
Documents citing Khilli Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 October, 1984

Gopalbhai Oghadbhai Parekh vs State Of Gujarat on 17 August, 2000

Therefore, the findings of this Court in the case of Gopalla Chhipa (supra) relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Devendra Narain v. State of U. P. (supra), that the use of phenolphthalein powder is a mandatory requirement, in our opinion, is contrary to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Khilli Ram (supra). In our opinion, in the instant case, the evidence on record is not of a dubious character. As stated above, the evidence in the instant case consisfs of three independent witnesses; all of them are public servants and have no axe to grind against the accused No. I and once their evidence is accepted as a reliable evidence, merely because the lest is not carried out with phenolphthalein powder, that fact by itself, will not lead to acquittal of the accused No. 1.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - J R Vora - Full Document

Gopalbhai Oghadbhai Parekh vs State Of Guj. on 17 August, 2000

Therefore, the findings of this Court in the case of Gopalla Chhipa (supra) relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Devendra Narain Vs. State of UP (supra), that the use of phenolphthalein powder is a mandatory requirement, in our opinion, is contrary to the observations of the apex Court in the case of Khilli Ram (supra). In our opinion, in the instant case, the evidence on record is not of a dubious character. As stated above, the evidence in the instant case consists of three independent witnesses; all of them are public servants and have no axe to grind against the accused no. 1 and once their evidence is accepted as a reliable evidence, merely because the test is not carried out with phenolphthalein powder, that fact by itself, will not lead to acquittal of the accused no. 1.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J R Vora - Full Document

Dalsukhbhai Savjibhai Patel Police Sub ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 28 February, 2007

23. One more decision is cited by Shri Mangukiya, which is in the case of Khilli Ram v. State of Rajasthan , whereby the Apex Court has acquitted the accused who had allegedly accepted the bribe amount while in uniform near a crowded bus-stand though the Police Station was near to the spot. The Apex Court has also observed that the phenolphthalein powder treatment to the currency notes used for trap should have been resorted to. But in the present case, there was no argument qua the use of type of powder advanced on behalf of the accused.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - C K Buch - Full Document

Ajaykumar Chandrasinh Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 28 March, 2005

18. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Shethna has argued that a person in charge of a Bank normally would not go to a shopkeeper and would accept money and that too in a public street. It was possible for the accused to call the complainant in the Bank for accepting the amount of illegal gratification. The conduct of the accused visiting the shop of the complainant by itself would not give rise to any presumption that he must have gone for receiving the bribe amount agreed upon earlier. The ratio of the decision in the case of Khilli Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 SCC (Cri.) 24, would not help the accused of the present case. In the cited decision, a police constable was found accepting the bribe an that too when he was in uniform near the crowded bus-stand instead of near the police station which was in the vicinity. In the cited decision, the Apex Court while appreciating the evidence, has observed that it was doubtful that the trap was for the accused and not for any other policeman. In the present case, no such doubt is emerging from record. The Apex Court was dealing with the case of a trap arranged on 2.10.1975. The present incident is of 1985. So, the ratio would not help the present petition. The nation has experienced increased corruption and mentalities because of speedy percolation at the grassroots level and the same has been found spreading wildly every year. Where to accept the amount of illegal gratification depends on the psychology of an individual. A shameless person or a greedy exploiter may not think on such or similar aspects and may accept the amount of bribe at any place any time. Village Piplod is not a place which can be said to be even a town. Practically the Bank working hours were over when the amount was accepted in the present case. So, in a so-called (small) bazar where possibility to have a crowd is very thin, and it being a casual bus-stand, may not have presence of large number of persons in the area. No evidence to controvert this possible situation is there on record. Of course, the place where the accused was found accepting the bribe is the market area of village Piplod and many people were passerby, but merely because it was possible for the accused to accept the amount of illegal gratification by calling the complainant in the Bank, by itself would not make the prosecution story doubtful or improbable. On the contrary, it is in evidence that the accused was to come to the shop of the complainant. So trapping officer was compelled to arrange the trap at the shop itself. It is in evidence that on 25.02.1985, while leaving the place, the accused informed the complainant that he will come on the next day and will see him. In such a situation, if the trapping officer has arranged the trap at the same place, looks more probable and it is not either the say of the defence or lacuna in prosecution that it is even possible to infer that the trap was for some other accused than the present appellant accused. So, the ratio of the above-cited decision of the Apex Court would also not help the present appellant accused.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - C K Buch - Full Document

Vasant Maruti Waikar vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 1990

Mr. Chitnis has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khilli Ram v. State of Rajasthan, , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the principle of law laid down in the case of State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, , which is to the effect that where the witness is an accomplice, though the evidence is admissible in law, the Judge should indicate in his judgment that he had the rule of caution in mind and give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next