Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 183 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa vs Mohd. Yunus on 17 September, 1993

Fir No. 09/2006 State vs . Mohd. Yunus Etc Page No.1 Of 30 on 18 January, 2019

(d) While total non­compliance of requirements of Sub­sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing FIR No. 09/2006 State Vs. Mohd. Yunus etc Page No.12 of 30 the information received, before initiating action, or non­sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001."
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Mohd. Yunus on 12 October, 2011

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of judge which State Vs. Mohd. Yunus @ Raju 8/15 FIR no. 38/11 under the present Code is a senior and experienced judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth­piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . on 22 November, 2011

4. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. When accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating evidence and documents, the accused persons denied the allegations and both accused persons mentioned that they did not commit the mistake intentionally as they were not aware that the recovered material was stolen page no. 4 of 7 State vs. Mohd.Yunus & Anr.; FIR NO. 190/2003 5 one. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused persons in their defence.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Mohd. Yunus @ Sonu on 18 February, 2020

Thus PW2 also reiterated the averments of the complaint Ex. PW1/A but he denied that anything was recovered from the possession of the accused. Further, he also failed to identify the accused in the court. Furthermore, he has also made contradictory statements in his testimony FIR No. 507/2013 Page no. 8 out of 9 State vs. Mohd. Yunus @ Sonu as initially he deposed that when he went to the ground floor, he saw that the room was open and lock was broken but he subsequently denied the same.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Mohd Yunus on 26 May, 2025

15. Although, the testimony of police witnesses is sufficient to prove guilt of accused, however the court must be on guard while considering the said statements. In the present matter, the contradictions as discussed above has made the case of the prosecution weak. BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2025.05.26 17:30:48 +0530 Page 8 of 9 Cr. Case No. 1008/2024 FIR No. 556/2023 State v. Mohd. Yunus
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Mohd. Yunis on 16 December, 2014

17. Further as per the testimony of PW 1 HC Sandeep Singh seal after the use was handed over to him. During his cross examination, he stated that he returned the seal on the next day after returning to the PS. However, it is not clear as to when the seal State Vs. Mohd. Yunis 6/7 FIR no. 863/06 was returned to the IO. No memo has been prepared and proved on the record. The prosecution was bound to prove on the record as to when the seal was returned to the IO to remove the element of the tempering with the case property.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vide This Judgment This Court Shall ... vs K. Yada on 30 January, 2013

Thereafter, he requested 4-5 public persons to join the raiding team but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their State v. Mohd. Yunus U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act FIR No. 79/2004 , PS HNDIN 3 names and addresses. He made a raiding team and proceeded towards the spot. At about 12.45 PM, they apprehended one person at the instance of secret informer and one actuated knife was recovered from the right pocket of his wearing pant during his formal search. He prepared the sketch memo of the knife vide memo Ex. PW1/A. The total length of knife was 24.2 cm, blade was 11 cm, handle was 13.2. The said knife was closed and sealed with the seal of MS. Seal after use was handed over to Ct Sanjeev Kumar and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He prepared rukka Ex. PW1/C and got the FIR registered through Ct. Sanjeev. Thereafter, the investigation in the present case was handed over to SI Ashok Kumar who reached at the spot and he handed over him the sealed case property, sketch memo, seizure memo and accused. Thereafter, he prepared site plan at his instance. IO recorded his statement and he left the spot. He identified the case property and the accused in the court.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Mohd. Yunus on 10 February, 2017

14. The second reason is that the public witnesses have not joined in the investigation. From the overall testimony of the witness, it appears that no effort, what to talk of a sincere/vague effort has been made to join the public persons in the investigation.  All FIR no. 60/08 State Vs. Mohd. Yunus 3/5 the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police witnesses. Although, it can be said that it was a chance recovery but the incident had occurred near a busy locality and therefore, it cannot be said that no public person would have been available at the spot and even if the prosecution has not joined the public witnesses it was incumbent upon the prosecution to at least put forward the reasons for not doing so. The failure on the part of the police personnels goes to suggest that they were not interested in joining the public persons in the police proceedings.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next