Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1370 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946

Biswajit Das vs The State Of Tripura on 6 December, 2018

68. The Privy Counsel in Pulukori Kottaya vs. King Emperor, 1947 PC 67 held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not artistically worded but it provides an exception to the prohibition imposed under the preceding sections. However, the extent of discovery admissible pursuant to the facts deposed by accused depends only to the nature of the facts discovered to which the information precisely relates.
Tripura High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Karol - Full Document

Avta Rsingh vs State Ofpb on 12 May, 2023

restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Suresh Malik Etc on 12 February, 2024

The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or noninculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. It is now FIR No.618/2014, PS. Jyoti Nagar State Vs. Suresh Malik & Ors. Page 82 of 102 well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact envisaged in the section. Decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : 74 IA 65] is the mostquoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
Delhi District Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next