Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Mohd. Ismail And Ors on 11 April, 1991

Fir No. 300/2014 State vs . Mohd. Israil on 7 January, 2019

5. PW­1 Sh. Anirudh Yadav is the complainant. He has deposed that he had been residing at the address of landlord Sh. Kishan Grover situated at 11­B, godown, PG Market, Delhi. On the date of incident, in the night at about 2.00 a.m., while he was sleeping, he heard the noise of THAK­THAK from back side of the Godown. He got up and went to the back side of the godown where he saw that the accused was breaking the window of godown to take out the articles. He told the said incident to the watchman Lal Bahadur and they raised hue and cry Page 3 of 17 MM­08 (C)/THC/Delhi/07/01/19 FIR No. 300/2014 State Vs. Mohd. Israil PS : Kotwali on which accused tried to flee towards PG Market. He also chased accused. Other public persons of the locality came over there and accused was apprehended in the PG Market. Public persons had also beaten the accused at the spot at the time of apprehension. In the meantime, one police official also came at the spot. The custody of the accused was handed over to him. The chheni and hammber used by the accused were also recovered from near the window of the godown. On cursory search of accused, one knife was recovered from his pocket. Later on, other police officials also came at the spot. A statement of PW­1 was recorded by the police at the PS which is Ex.PW1/A. The site plan was prepared. The Cheni and Hammer were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. The sketch of the recovered knife was prepared which is Ex. PW1/C. The knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/E. Personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/F. The witness has identified the accused in the Court. However, he did not identify the chheni and hammer. He would state that he was unable to identify the case of property due to lapse of long time.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Mohd. Israil on 8 July, 2010

Dalip FIR no. 603/07 PS Janak Puri : State vs. Mohd. Israil Page 2/2 Kaushik. Ins. Dalip Kaushik filled in Form FSL and he affixed his seal of DK on the Form FSL. Both the pullandas and FSL Form were seized. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Satish Kumar. Case property was sent to PS along with rukka through HC Ram Bhaj. Case was got registered. The investigation was carried out. Site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against the accused was filed in the Court. The copies were supplied.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Mohd. Ismail on 25 February, 2025

14. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CIS No. 1600/2019 Page No.12 of 13 State Vs. Mohd. Ismail FIR No. 277/2016 Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK PS Preet Vihar GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.02.25 16:29:57 +0530 reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.G. Narayanan vs The Union Of India on 30 May, 2005

19. Similarly, in (1991) 3 S.C.C. 239 [UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MOHAMMED ISMAIL], the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority. It cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. It "could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law".
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - P Sridevan - Full Document

P.G. Narayanan vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By The ... on 30 May, 2005

19. Similarly, in (1991) 3 S.C.C. 239 [UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MOHAMMED ISMAIL], the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority. It cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. It "could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law".
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 4 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Arunachalam Muthu vs Nafan Bv on 30 November, 2012

61. Mr. Khambata, the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.8 has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of Respondent No.1. In addition, he has submitted that it is well settled that an administrative authority can always lay down certain guidelines which aid in the exercise of its discretionary power in individual cases. Such norms or rules by which an administrative authority regulates the exercise of its discretion are not fetters but rather safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of discretion. He has submitted that even in the judgment cited on behalf of the Appellant viz. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & another vs. Mohd. Ismail & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the conferment of discretionary power upon an authority does not confer any vested right in any person for the exercise of such ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:03 ::: KPP -74- Company Appeal (L) No. 28 of 2012 discretion (Para 11). The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that whereas statutory discretion could not be fettered by self-created rules or policy, it is open to an authority to which discretion has been entrusted to lay down the norms or rules to regulate exercise of such discretion (Para 13). The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself noticed that there are two factors which are relevant. Firstly, that discretion has to be exercised within the constraint of efficiency and effectiveness. Secondly, that discretion must be exercised according to rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion (Para 15). These factors in fact support the framing of norms or rules regulating the exercise of the Chairman's discretion.
Bombay High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next