State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Mukesh Kumar on 1 October, 2019
Relevant extract of Rakesh Chand (supra) reads as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.89 seconds)State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Dharambir & Ors. on 1 October, 2019
Relevant extract of Rakesh Chand (supra) reads as follows :
Imran @ Akhlakh vs State on 22 April, 2015
In Sanjay Shankar Swami @ Sanjay Kumar vs. State(NCT) of
Delhi, 2013 V AD(Delhi) 413, substantially similar plea was taken
that since no recovery of any weapon of offence has been made from
the appellant, Section 397 IPC is not attracted. Repelling the
contention, it was observed by a Single Judge of this court that from
the testimony of PW-5 it was amply clear that one of the appellants
showed him the katta while another showed him a knife. Thus there
was use of weapons. Conviction u/s 397 IPC is not based on
consequential recovery but on the user. If the Court is satisfied that a
deadly weapon is used then Section 397 IPC is clearly attracted.
Ranjeet @ Bihari vs State on 12 July, 2016
In Sanjay Shankar Swami @ Sanjay Kumar vs. State(NCT) of
Delhi, 2013 V AD (Delhi) 413, substantially similar plea was taken that
since no recovery of any weapon of offence has been made from the
appellant, Section 397 IPC is not attracted. Repelling the contention, it
was observed by a Single Judge of this court that from the testimony of
PW-5 it was amply clear that one of the appellants showed him the katta
while another showed him a knife. Thus there was use of weapons.
Conviction u/s 397 IPC is not based on consequential recovery but on the
user. If the Court is satisfied that a deadly weapon is used then Section
397 IPC is clearly attracted.
Anil Kumar vs State on 19 November, 2016
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Crl. Rev. No.224/2016
● That the impugned order passed by trial court is illegal, improper,
unjustified, perverse, wrong and against the basic principles of law as well
as the law settled by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as High
Court of Delhi through its numerous judicial pronouncements.
● That the trial court did not take into consideration the Delhi High Court
Rules, Section 6 in Part -H, Volume III, Chapter 1.
● That the trial court had prejudged the action of the IO and thereafter
directed the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry which is against the
law recently and categorically laid down by our own High Court on
18.12.2015 in WP(CRL) 207/2015 Rakesh Chand v. State of NCT of
Delhi.
Court On Its Own Motion vs Anil Dureja on 23 December, 2016
a) Rakesh Chand Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2015 SCC OnLine Del
14193 :-
Rahish Alias Ganja vs State on 12 October, 2017
In Sanjay Shankar Swami @ Sanjay Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of
Delhi (Crl. A. 206/2010), this Court held that,
"9. Learned counsel for the Appellants have further
contended that Appellant Ramesh has been acquitted
for offence under Section 25 Arms Act and thus it will
have to be deemed that there was no recovery of
weapon of offence from him, further the alleged knife
shown by Appellant Sanjay Kumar has not been
recovered. In the absence of proof of recovery the
Appellants cannot be convicted for offence under
Section 397 IPC. In the present case the testimony of
PW5 is amply clear wherein he stated that Appellant
Ramesh showed him katta and Appellant Sanjay
Kumar showed him a knife. Thus, there is use of
weapons. Conviction under Section 397 IPC is not
based on the consequential recovery but on the user.
If the Court is satisfied that a deadly weapon is used
then Section 397 IPC is clearly attracted. In view of
the testimony of PW5, I find no infirmity in the
learned Trial Court convicting the Appellants for
offence under Section 397 IPC and Section 392/34
IPC."
Sanjay Kumar vs State on 18 September, 2014
In Sanjay Shankar Swami (supra), substantially similar plea was
taken that since no recovery of any weapon of offence has been made
from the appellant, Section 397 IPC is not attracted. Repelling the
contention, it was observed by a Single Judge of this court that from the
testimony of PW-5 it was amply clear that one of the appellants showed
him the katta while another showed him a knife. Thus there was use of
weapons. Conviction u/s 397 IPC is not based on consequential recovery
but on the user. If the Court is satisfied that a deadly weapon is used then
Section 397 IPC is clearly attracted.
State vs . Rahul Kumar on 3 October, 2017
He
further stated that the adverse comments by Ld. ACMM is
uncalled for and relied upon Rakesh Chand Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi decided on 18.12.2015.
1