Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Soniya & Anr. on 27 November, 2019

State vs Soniya on 8 August, 2025

11. ASI Virender Kumar was examined as PW5 by the prosecution. He deposed that on 08.06.2022, he was posted as ASI at PS-Ranjit Nagar. On that day, he received DD No. 39A, he along with Ct. Sona went to Gali No. 4, TC Camp, Pandav Nagar and met Ct. Sandeep there along with the accused Sonia. HC Sandeep handed over the recovered cartons of illicit State Vs. Soniya FIR No. 473/2022 Page No. 9 of 23 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Soniya on 22 November, 2025

It is correct that I did not hand over the seal to any independent public person. It is wrong to suggest that I did not do the same as accused is falsely implicated in the present case and case property is falsely planted upon her. It is correct that I did not make any seal handing over memo. It is wrong to suggest that I did not FIR NO. 900/2021 State Vs. Soniya 6 of 19 do the same as I did not hand over the seal to any person. It is wrong to suggest that I did not do my investigation in proper and fair manner. It is wrong to suggest that I prepared all the documents while sitting in PS only. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Soniya on 15 October, 2024

"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the FIR No. 0203/18 State Vs. Soniya 10 of 18 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date: ASIWAL 2024.10.15 04:33:53 +0530 petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigation Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 114/18 State vs . Soniya 1 Of 14 on 26 April, 2022

6. PW3 and PW5 who were recovery witnesses stated that there were houses near the place where accused was found selling illicit liquor. PW3 further stated that he had asked the neighbours to join investigation but they refused to join. PW3 further stated that he had asked the name of FIR No. 114/18 State Vs. Soniya 9 of 14 PS Anand Parbat those persons but they refused to disclose their name. It is relevant to note that no notice was given to any person who refused to join the investigation. It is relevant here to note that above recovery witness had not mentioned the description of the persons who had allegedly refused to join the investigation. Further, there is nothing on record to show that recovery witnesses / police officials had served any notice under Section 160 CrPC upon the persons who refused to join the investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by recovery witnesses who were police officials to join public witnesses in the proceedings. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. Section 100 (4) of the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. Joining of independent witnesses would have given credibility to the recovery proceeding. Therefore, non joining of independent witness casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Soniya on 26 September, 2024

25. Thus, in light of the above discussions which throws doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused Soniya w/o Sh. Sachin is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 33 Delhi Excise Act. Digitally signed by HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI Announced in the open court on 26.09.2024. NEGI Date: 2024.09.26 14:59:12 +0530 (Harshal Negi) JMFC-02/Dwarka Court, New Delhi, 26.09.2024 It is certified that the present judgment runs into 13 pages and each page bears my signature. HARSHAL Digitally signed by HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date: 2024.09.26 14:59:16 +0530 (Harshal Negi) JMFC-02/DwarkaCourt, New Delhi, 26.09.2024 FIR No.: 862/2021 State versus Soniya Page No. 13 of 13
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Soniya on 8 May, 2025

FIR No.473/2020 (State vs. Soniya) PS Sagarpur "It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions."
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Soniya on 22 January, 2022

Thereafter, IO took out 2 quarter bottles from the plastic katta and remaining 17 quarter bottles again put into the plastic katta. IO prepared pullanda of quarter bottle and remaining liquor and sealed with the seal of RK. IO also filled M 29 Form. Thereafter, IO seized the recovered liquor and sample vide memo Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Jaganlal for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS Jahangir Puri and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. In the meantime, ASI Raj Pal also reached at FIR No. 448/17 State Vs. Soniya Page 9 ofsigned Digitally 14 RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.01.22 15:04:30 +0530 the spot.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanket Sahni vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 23 May, 2022

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") has been preferred for quashing the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2018, passed in Criminal Case No.405 of 2018, State vs. Soniya Sahni and another, under Section 420 IPC, pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (for short, "the case") and entire proceedings of the case.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Maithani - Full Document
1   2 Next