Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 228 (3.19 seconds)
Documents citing Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2006

(Pc No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs . State) on 20 October, 2007

8. Arguments have been heard from the learned Counsel of petitioner. It has been argued by the learned Counsel of petitioner that the Objector has not led any evidence and, therefore, the order dated 4.11.96 stands vacated and the evidence which was led by the (PC No.144/07) (Avtar Singh vs. State) : 5: petitioner before the revocation order dated 4.11.96 can be read in evidence to prove the Will.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Kumar @ Nannu vs State Of Punjab on 31 March, 2021

CRM-26389-2017 titled as 'Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 29.01.2018; CRM-35285-2017 titled as 'Gurlal Singh @ Gora and others Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 14.03.2018; CRM-M-21366- 2018 titled as 'Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2022 06:54:05 ::: CRM-M-10343-2020 and -5- other connected cases 03.10.2018; CRM-M-49680-2019 titled as 'Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 29.11.2019; CRM-M-21398-2016 titled as 'Arjun Singh Vs. State of Haryana' decided on 22.06.2016; CRM-M- 7161-2016 titled as 'Dhanna Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 05.04.2016; CRM-M-601-2018 titled as 'Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 22.03.2018; CRM-M-47221-2017 titled as 'Gaurav Garg @ Bittu Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 13.03.2018; CRM-6743-2017 titled as 'Jangir Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana' decided on 16.03.2017; CRM-M-47998-2019 titled as 'Tarlok Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 18.11.2019; CRM-M- 23975-2019 titled as 'Gurcharan Singh @ Mannu Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 30.09.2019 and CRM-M-4349-2016 titled as 'Shabh Singh @ Saba @ Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 14.03.2016.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

Amir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 August, 2010

There is another angle of the case. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the prosecution has proved conscious possession, but nevertheless no question relating to possession, muchless conscious possession, was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 180, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no question with regard to possession of poppy husk was put and even the driver was not question on the same lines and it was held that failure to elicit their answer on such crucial aspect as possession, is quite significant and it is not proper to raise presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and suffice for acquittal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaswinder Singh Alias Binder vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2009

Adverting to the present one, a meticulous perusal of the appellant's statutory statement would reveal that the question of possession as was observed by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) was not put to him while being examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. That being so, in view of Hari Singh and others' case (supra), this omission vitally affects the prosecution case. To put it differently, it renders the prosecution case vulnerable on this aspect.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suneel Kumar Yadav @ Bhoori vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 2018

In this case, reliance was placed on the law laid down in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 180, which is not being reproduced herein because it would amount to repetetion. If the matter was looked in the back ground of observations by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case. It was difficult to say that the appellant was in custody or control of the bags. It was not put to the appellant in his statutory statement that he was found in conscious possession of the bags. He had also not been charged under Section 8 of the Act for carrying offensive goods. Merely because he was driving the tractor, he could not be presumed to be intelligent and conscious possession of the alleged bags of poppy husk. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted setting aside the impugned judgment and the appellant was acquitted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukhtiar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 February, 2008

In re : Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab 2002 (4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 180 : 2002 Cri LJ 4330, a truck was intercepted carrying 16 bags of poppy bags driven by Balbir Chand and other 4 men were travelling in it. Two of passengers escaped while other two Swarna Ram and Swatantra Kumar were found sitting in the truck. The accused were arrested. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaka Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 November, 2009

Adverting to the present one, a meticulous perusal of the appellant's statutory statement would reveal that the question of possession as was observed by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) was not put to him while being examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. That being so, in view of Hari Singh and others' case (supra), this omission vitally affects the prosecution case. To put it differently, it renders the prosecution case vulnerable on this aspect.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next