Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (2.92 seconds)
Documents citing Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors on 25 April, 1975

S.Harcharn Singh vs S. Sajjan Singh And Ors on 29 November, 1984

(1) I am of the opinion that a proper reading of that decision would indicate that for a proper verification of an affidavit or a petition based on certain information, the source should be indicated but I do not wish to examine this question any further because no objection at the initial stage was taken and specially in view of this Court's decision in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra and ors. (supra) and in Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh (2) on an appropriate occasion, this question may require a fuller consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 32 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Shri Tukaram S. Dighole vs Shri Manikrao Shivaji Kokate on 25 January, 2008

In the case of Ziyauddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan R. Mehra (supra), the Apex Court considered the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1950. The Supreme court laid down certain conditions which are required to satisfied for tape records of speeches to be admissible in evidence. The Supreme Court has held that (i) the voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be identified by the maker of the record or others who recognise it; (ii) the accuracy of what was actually recorded must be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence so as to rule out the possibilities of tampering with the recording and (iii) the subject matter recorded had to be shown as relevant. As regards the transcripts of the tape records, the evidence of the makers of the transcripts must be available to the Court as the transcripts are corroborative evidence to confirm what the tape records contain. In the present case, as discussed earlier, none of these criteria have been fulfilled by the petitioner on the ground that the VHS cassette is a public document. The transcripts of the speeches have also not been proved by the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - N Mhatre - Full Document

Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.. on 2 January, 2017

40 The decision of the Constitution Bench was followed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Ziyauddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas73. In that case, the appellant was contesting an election to the legislative assembly. In the course of his speeches he made a direct attack against a rival candidate who, like him, was also Muslim on the ground that he was not true to his religion whereas the appellant was. The High Court held this to be a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) following the decision in Kultar Singh. This was affirmed by this Court with the following observations :
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 114 - Cited by 0 - M B Lokur - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande And Ors. on 29 June, 2007

In this behalf I have» considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (1) N. Sri Rama Reddy v. Shri V.V. Girl AIR 1981 SC 1162) (supra), (2) Tusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Cri LJ 103 (supra), (3) Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra (supra) and (4) R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra 1973 Cri LJ 238 (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 2 January, 2017

40 The decision of the Constitution Bench was followed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Ziyauddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas[73]. In that case, the appellant was contesting an election to the legislative assembly. In the course of his speeches he made a direct attack against a rival candidate who, like him, was also Muslim on the ground that he was not true to his religion whereas the appellant was. The High Court held this to be a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) following the decision in Kultar Singh. This was affirmed by this Court with the following observations :
Supreme Court of India Cites 117 - Cited by 54 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Anvar.P.V vs P.K.Basheer

"It is well settled that tape-records of speeches are "documents" as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and stand on no different footing than photographs. (See : Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Ors.4). There is also no doubt E.P.No.3/2011 200 that the new techniques and devices are the order of the day. Audio and video tape technology has emerged as a powerful medium through which a first hand information about an event can be gathered and in a given situation may prove to be a crucial piece of evidence. At the same time, with fast development in the electronic techniques, the tapes/cassettes are more susceptible to tampering and alterations by transposition, excision, etc. which may be difficult to detect and, therefore, such evidence has to be received with caution. Though it would neither be feasible nor advisable to lay down any exhaustive set of rules by which the admissibility of such evidence may be judged but it needs to be emphasised that to rule out the possibility of any kind of tampering with the tape, the E.P.No.3/2011 201 standard of proof about its authenticity and accuracy has to be more stringent as compared to other documentary evidence."
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - S Nambiar - Full Document

Part-Ii

The Supreme Court observed that, like a photograph of a relevant incident, a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact admissible under sec. 7 and 8. The imprint on the magnetic tape is the direct effect of the relevant sources. Thus, if a statement is relevant, an accurate tape record of the statement is also relevant and admissible (Yusuf Alli vs. State: AIR 1968 SC 147), R.M. Malkani vs. State AIR 1973 SC 157; Ziyauddin vs. Brijmohan, AIR 1975 SC 1788.
Law Commission Report Cites 235 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next