Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr vs Shri Jasbir Singh on 12 February, 1999

State vs . Jasbir Singh, on 23 May, 2012

The trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed. However, during trial complainant turned hostile and deposed that when he went to the police station on first occasion to obtain delivery of his scooter rickshaw it was not the accused that was present but one Hawaldar was present and it was not the accused but that Hawaldar who demanded bribe of Rs. 60/­ from him and when he went to the police station along with punch witness he found accused there and asked him to take a sum of Rs. 60/­ and return the scooter rickshaw. He stretched his hand with the money towards the pocket of accused 's trouser but accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant for. He refused to receive the money and jerked complainant 's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into neighboring room. He deposed that accused neither demanded the amount from him nor accepted the amount. The FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 21 of 25 punch witness who went along with the complainant could not be examined as he became insane and other punch witness turned hostile".
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No.136­08 (State vs . Jasbir Singh) on 1 March, 2011

It is beyond any explanation or imagination that such a serious Page 14 of 19 SC No.136­08 (State Vs. Jasbir Singh) complaint was kept pending by the police till 13.01.08. IO admitted that he did not conduct any investigation till 13.01.08. I have gone through the case diary also. Case diary also does not speak anything regarding any investigation or inquiry conducted before 13.01.08. PW3 Inderjeet Singh has stated in his testimony that on 13.01.08, PW4 Hardeep Singh had come back and stated that he was abducted. It seems that initially a complaint, Ex.PW3/A was made on 10.01.08, which was kept pending and on 13.01.08, after the driver (PW4) came back, the police for the reasons best known to them, tampered with the initial complaint and then got a FIR lodged.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jasbir Singh on 31 January, 2011

"the essential pre­requisites of a corruption case i.e. demand and acceptance have to be proven beyond doubt and where the prosecution has failed to prove the same, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The only deviation in the case in hand and the cited case is that no tainted money was recovered from the accused but in the present case GC notes were recovered from the accused and his hand wash was also positive then presumption u/s 20 of POC Act would be called for but again the provision is that there has to be a demand from which he obtains for himself of for any other person any gratification that is to say once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the State Vs Jasbir Singh Page No. 19/20 presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to be public servant who received it".
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Criminal Case/18/2003 on 9 September, 2011

In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel it is stated by witness that he did not remember the name of Duty Officer. (V) Prosecution lastly examined PW-5 SI Balbir Singh who deposed that on 11.1.2003 on receipt of DD No. 22 A he alongwith Ct. Ghan Syham reached at the spot where one Maruti bearing no. DL2 CK 3269 and one Taxi bearing No. DL 1T 2927 were found in the accidental condition and HC Meer Singh handed over accused to him. He left Ct. Ghan Shyam at the spot and went to AIIMS Hospital where and collected the MLC of injured. The injured was declared brought dead by the doctor. It is further stated by witness that he came back at the spot where eye witness Dharam Singh met him. His statement was recorded. Endorsement was made on State v. Jasbir Singh 7 rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ghan Shyam for registration of the FIR. After registration of the case Ct. Ghanshyam came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. Site plan was prepared at instance of complainant. Both the vehicles were taken into possession. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. DL of the accused was also taken into possession. Both the vehicles were got mechanically inspected. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted and dead body was handed over to the relative of the deceased. After completion of investigating the challan was filed.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 November, 2001

15. The view taken in Namdi Francis Nwazor v. Union of India 1998 (8) SCC 534 (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the accused and which is similar to the one taken in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh (supra) in view of what has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (supra) and Ors. subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra (supra), Sarjudas v. State of Gujarat (supra) and in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of M.P. (supra) stands impliedly overruled and as such cannot be pressed into service by the accused.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - R L Khurana - Full Document

Dipankar And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 2002

15. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in decisions in the case of State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh and in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shri Pirthi Chand and Anr. (cited supra) would be clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and it is obvious that the evidence obtained by P.S.I. Chate for launching the prosecution against the petitioner would be admissible in evidence and at this stage, it is difficult to say that the entire search and seizure was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that on this ground of illegal search and seizure, the prosecution of all the applicants is liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S T Kharche - Full Document

Sangadan Subrahmanyam And Ors. vs State Of A.P. on 17 July, 2001

The decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh (supra) wherein it was held that though poppy straw was recovered from the bags of the accused, yet he was required to be informed about his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, now stands overruled by the decision in Baldev Singh case (supra). If a person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance is found from it. it cannot be said that it was found from his "person". In this case heroin was found from a bag belonging to the appellant and not from his person and therefore it was not necessary to make an offer for search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of a Magistrate.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Gulabsing Kushvah And Ravikaran ... vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2001

7.1 The decision in Jasbir Singh's case (supra) cannot assist the appellants, because, as held by the Supreme Court in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1999) 8 SCC 257, the decision in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh wherein it was held that though poppy straw was recovered from the bags of the accused, yet he was required to be informed about his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, now stands overruled by the decision in Balbir Singh's case. It was further held in paragraph 4 of the judgement that if a person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance is found from it, it cannot be said that it was found from his `person'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sajjansing @ Raju Jagdishsinh Pawar vs State Of Gujarat on 13 March, 2003

"5. In Kalema Tumba this Court considered the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and held that only when "the person" of an accused is to be searched then he is required to be informed about his right to be examined in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The Court further held that in view of the decision in the case of Baldev Singh the decision rendered by this Court in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh wherein it was held that though poppy husk was received from the bags of the accused, he was required to be informed about his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, stood overruled. In facts of that case the Court held that heroin was found from the bags belonging to the appellant and not from his person and therefore it was not necessary to make an offer for search in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate.
Gujarat High Court Cites 106 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next