Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Vimal Sharma & Anr. vs The Standing Counsel (Crl.)& Anr. on 23 July, 2015

Chandra Electronic Appliances Pvt. Ltd vs Havels India Ltd on 20 July, 2024

Vimal Khanna (Supra) has been followed in Mohd. Gulzar Vs The State (GNCTD), 2018 (4) JCC 2291 (DHC), wherein after recording that the counsel for the accused was not present on three consecutive dates to cross examine the witness, the Court held that since the right of cross examination is a valuable right, the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the aforesaid rights of the accused and thus permitted one more opportunity to the accused to cross examine the alleged victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B. K. Jha vs Brij Bhushan Attri on 4 January, 2024

Vimal Khanna (Supra) has been followed in Mohd. Gulzar Vs The State (GNCTD), 2018 (4) JCC 2291 (DHC), wherein after recording that the counsel for the accused was not present on three consecutive dates to cross examine the witness, the Court held that since the right of cross examination is a valuable right, the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the aforesaid rights of the accused and thus permitted one more opportunity to the accused to cross examine the alleged victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Saisons vs M/S Rainbow Enterprises on 3 February, 2024

Vimal Khanna (Supra) has been followed in Mohd. Gulzar Vs The State (GNCTD), 2018 (4) JCC 2291 (DHC), wherein after recording that the counsel for the accused was not present on three consecutive dates to cross examine the witness, the Court held that since the right of cross examination is a valuable right, the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the aforesaid rights of the accused and thus permitted one more opportunity to the accused to cross examine the alleged victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Priyank Bhatia (Proprietor Of Abba ... vs Amit Jain ( Proprietor Of Saurabh Sagar ... on 15 May, 2024

Vimal Khanna (Supra) has been followed in Mohd. Gulzar Vs The State (GNCTD), 2018 (4) JCC 2291 (DHC), wherein after recording that the counsel for the accused was not present on three consecutive dates to cross examine the witness, the Court held that since the right of cross examination is a valuable right, the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the aforesaid rights of the accused and thus permitted one more opportunity to the accused to cross examine the alleged victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anjana Kashyap vs Rishi Kant Mishra on 18 October, 2023

Vimal Khanna (Supra) has been followed in Mohd. Gulzar Vs The State (GNCTD), 2018 (4) JCC 2291 (DHC), wherein after recording that the counsel for the accused was not present on three consecutive dates to cross examine the witness, the Court held that since the right of cross examination is a valuable right, the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the aforesaid rights of the accused and thus permitted one more opportunity to the accused to cross examine the alleged victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganaya Commodities And Anr vs Avneet Goyal on 5 October, 2024

Vimal Khanna (Supra) has been followed in Mohd. Gulzar Vs The State (GNCTD), 2018 (4) JCC 2291 (DHC), wherein after recording that the counsel for the accused was not present on three consecutive dates to cross examine the witness, the Court held that since the right of cross examination is a valuable right, the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the aforesaid rights of the accused and thus permitted one more opportunity to the accused to cross examine the alleged victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganaya Commodities And Anr vs Avneet Goyal on 5 October, 2024

Vimal Khanna (Supra) has been followed in Mohd. Gulzar Vs The State (GNCTD), 2018 (4) JCC 2291 (DHC), wherein after recording that the counsel for the accused was not present on three consecutive dates to cross examine the witness, the Court held that since the right of cross examination is a valuable right, the child's right under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act has to be balanced with the aforesaid rights of the accused and thus permitted one more opportunity to the accused to cross examine the alleged victim.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1