Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Sadhu Singh(D) By Lrs. Etc. Etc. vs The State Of Punjab on 31 March, 2022

Om Prakash Gupta vs State Of Delhi on 1 July, 2022

16. In the present case, as per prosecution witnesses, public persons were asked to join the investigation, but none of them agreed. However, admittedly no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action u/sec. 187 IPC. The reasons cited by witness i.e. paucity of time does not disclose any good ground to be entertained since as per prosecution itself, the appellant as well as the case property was already in custody of the investigating team and therefore latter had sufficient time to join the independent witnesses before formal seizure of same. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join the independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Bimla Devi on 5 May, 2022

14. In the present case, as per the police witnesses, public persons were requested to join the investigation by the IO but none of them agreed. However, no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec. 187 IPC. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Kanta Devi on 31 August, 2022

19. In the present case, as per PW3 ASI Sukhbinder Singh, public persons were requested to join the investigation. However, it is clear that no efforts were made to join the independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jogender Singh vs State Of Delhi on 7 December, 2022

16. In the present case, as per prosecution witnesses, public persons were asked to join the investigation, but none of them agreed. However, admittedly no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action u/sec. 187 IPC. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join the independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution . The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . on 13 January, 2023

21. Be that as it may, during cross examination of witnesses, it has come on record that the public persons were available at the time of alleged recovery. However, no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action u/s 187 IPC. Therefore it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sadhan on 4 December, 2023

18. No written notice was served upon any members of general public who refused to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec. 187 IPC. Therefore it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Pooran Singh on 25 July, 2024

13. In the present case, as per prosecution witness PW-1 and PW2, the public persons were requested to join the investigation by the IOs but, none of them agreed as stated by them. No written notice was served admittedly upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec. 187 IPC. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a FIR No. 270/2020 Page No. 7 of 9 serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next