Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 1963

Kharkan And Others vs The State Of U.P on 29 August, 1963

As pointed out in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2), the case of the Privy Council involved a confession by an accused in which he admited possession of a firearm and some ammunition which were both offences under the relative law of Malaya State. He was convicted on the basis of that statement on two counts but on appeal was acquitted in respect of the count relating to the possession of ammunition and a fresh trial was ordered in respect of the count relating to the possession of the firearm. In the second trial the confession was again relied upon and he was convicted. The Privy Council set aside the conviction because the confession was incapable of being divided into two parts so as to make separate confessions about the (1) A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 415. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 28 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Gopal Krishan on 21 February, 1983

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has assailed the judgment of the learned Magistrate on the ground that, when the sample had been given to the accused as per rules it was obligatory on him to produce his sample so that report from the Central Food Laboratory may be obtained. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 FAJ 342(Punj and Har). In that case the bottle of the sample with the accused was found to be broken. The bottle containing third sample smashed while in transit to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The accused was convicted on the basis of analysis of the Public Analyst. His Lordship was pleased to observe that no doubt whenever suspicious circumstances come into existence in such cases, to which the prosecution has contributed by its acts of commission or omission, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. The conviction was however for the reason that in that case no such criticism could be lodged against the prosecution.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

K.V. Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2000

The aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court has been followed in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1971 Cri LJ 1764 (Punj and Har). It is by now well settled that a false plea of alibi set up by an accused is a strong incriminating circumstance against him. On the evidence adduced in this case we are of opinion that the plea of alibi set up by the accused has completely collapsed and broken down leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused was present at the place of occurrence where the prosecution says he was. Accordingly, we reject the plea of alibi and hold that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence in the early hours of 6-8-1988.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranjit Mondal And Sajal Barui And Etc. vs State on 31 January, 1997

21. Mr. Safiullah also drew the attention of the Court to Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the powers of the Appellate Court and Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that if this Court feels it necessary to examine the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure afresh, this Court may do so instead of remanding the ease to the trial Court for fresh examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cited the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1968 SC 702 : (1968 Cri LJ 806) (Munshiram v. Delhi Administration (para 5); (2) (Labhchand v. State of Maharashtra (para 2); (3) AIR 1963 SC 1531 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 418) (Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra) and (4) (Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab) (para 3) in support of his submissions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mohd. Jamil vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 2004

Similar view was taken by the Apex Court tearlier in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 79, in which the accused was convicted for murder which he committed with a pistol. The conviction was confirmed by the High Court in appeal, subsequently, accused was acquitted under Section 19(1)(f) of Arms Act in a companion case started against accused. In that situation the Apex Court held that such acquittal under Section 19(1)(f) of Arms Act could not be taken into account in disposing appeal filed against conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Shrivastava - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Tej Ram on 23 March, 1989

9. The word 'obtains' has been the subject-matter of dispute before the Courts on a number of occasions. Reference can be made to (1983) 2 Chand LR 192 Tarlok Singh v. The State of Punjab 1981 Chand L (Cri) R 159 Ram Parkash v. The State of Punjab, Chand L (Cri) R 539 (Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab and (1984) 1 Chand L (Cri) R 281 wherein it has been held that demand of bribe has to be proved by the prosecution as an independent fact.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Monu vs State Of U.P. on 22 November, 2021

In Mohinder Singh's case (supra) on which strong reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant, this Court has held that where the prosecution case was that the accused shot the deceased with a gun but it appeared likely that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a rifle and there was no evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove that the injuries were caused by a gun, and the nature of the injuries was also such that the shots must have been fired by more than one person and not by one person only, and the prosecution had no evidence to show that another person also shot, and the oral evidence was of witnesses who were not disinterested, the failure to examine an expert would be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It is plain that these observations were made in a case where the prosecution evidence was suffering from serious infirmities. Thus, in determining the effect of these observations, the facts in respect of which these observations came to be made cannot be lost sight of. The said case therefore, cannot be held to lay down an inflexible rule that in every case where an accused person is charged with murder caused by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succeed in proving the charge only if Ballistic Expert is examined. In what cases, the examination of a Ballistic Expert is essential for the proof of the prosecution case, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M K Gupta - Full Document

P.L. Mehra, Etc. vs D.R. Khanna Etc. on 2 September, 1970

52. The Court, however, repelled the contention by the following two observations at pages 452 and 454 (of SCR) = (at pp. 1103 and 1104 of AIR):- "We are unable to accept the argument that since the High Court of Punjab by their judgment in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's case, struck down the Act, Act 6 of 1968 had ceased to have any existence in law......... The effect of that decision was only that the Act was in law, non-existent, so long as there was no definition of the expression "cattle fair" in the Act. That defect has been remedied by the Punjab Act 18 of 1968".
Delhi High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

State vs Sidhartha Vashisht And Ors. on 18 December, 2006

24; Rao Harnarain v. Gumani Ram ; Smt. Padmavati v. R K Karanjia AIR 1963 SC MP 61; Sebastian v. Karunakaran ; Banu Singh v. Emperor X CWN 962; Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu ; State of Delhi v. Sanjay Gandhi ; M.P. Narayana Menon 1925 MADRAS 106; Mohinder Singh v. State AIR 1963 SC 415; Zahiruddin v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 75; R v. Preston (1993) 4 ALL E R 838; Practice Note (1982) 1 ALL E R 734; Jagjit Singh alias Jagga v. State of Punjab ; Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra ; Hallu and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Duraipandi Thevar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu ; Somappa Vamanappa madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi v. The State of Mysore ; Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ; Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. ; Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat ; Kanhai Mishra alia Kanhaiya Misar v. State of Bihar ; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh ; Basavaraj R.Patil and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ; Dal Singh v. King-Emperor AIR 1917 PC 25; Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad ; State of Kerala v. Ammini and Ors. ; Sidharth and Ors. v. State of Bihar ; Damodar v. State of Rajasthan and Budhsen and Anr. v. State of UP .
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 3 - R S Sodhi - Full Document
1   2 Next