Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Bihar vs Abdul Majid on 11 February, 1954

) That On 18.07.2010 At 11.15 Pm At Mg Road vs Unknown on 23 August, 2013

(II) PW2 Ram Kamal deposed before the court that on 19.07.2010 at about 11.15 pm he along with Kishan Kumar, Naveen, Gorli Chiranjivi and Phool Singh were going towards Ghitorni from Sultanput Depot on foot. When they reached at pillar no.103 one Tata 709 bearing no.HR­38E­1419 coming from Sultanpur towards Ghitorni hit Kishan Kumar from behind and he fell down on the road. He sustained injury State v. Abdul Mazid etc Page 3 FIR No.154/10 PS FP Beri on the neck. The said truck was being driven by Abdul Mazid in a rash and negligent manner. In the meanwhile one truck coming from Sultanpur Depot side hit the said Tata 709 from behind due to which Tata 709 over turned. The driver of the said truck ran away from the spot. Phool Singh called 100 number and police came to the spot and shifted the injured to Fortis Hospital with Naveen and Phool Singh. He remained at the spot. Witness further stated that IO recorded his statement and he was discharged.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Abdul Majid on 25 September, 2013

5. PW 2 Ct. Shobir Singh deposed that on 05.09.2007, he was posted as constable at PS Saket. On that day in connection investigation of report no. 43 he along with ASI Dilip Singh reached at spot i.e Red Light Khan Pur where DL 1PB 4563 was found standing and in reference of injured it came into their knowledge that he has been shifted to the hospital through PCR Van. Thereafter DD no 46 information was received that injured was admitted to AIIMS hospital. And thereafter ASI Dilip Singh left him at the spot to reach at AIIMs hospital. After passing of one hour ASI Dilip Singh reached at the spot and handed over him rukka for registration of the case and present case was registered by him after arriving at PS. After getting registration he returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and Rukka to the IO. Investigation of case was assigned to ASI Dilip Singh. During the course of investigation, IO prepared site plan, and seized the offending bus bearing no. DL 1PB 4563 route no. 419 vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. During the course of investigation IO seized the original insurance, copy of RC of offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW 2/A on production by owner of the offending vehicle namely Smt. Triveni. Copy of insurance and RC are collectively Mark A. During the course of investigation IO arrested accused Abdul Majid in the presence of complainant and he was produced by the owner of the offending vehicle vide memo State Vs. Abdul Majid 3/14 FIR no. 642/07 Ex. PW 1/C and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex. PW 1/D. After arrest IO also seized the original DL of the accused on production by accused Abdul Majid vide memo Ex. PW 2/B. He identified accused Addul Majid who was arrested by the IO in his presence on the identification of complainant and on the production by owner of the offending vehicle. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Abdul Majid on 22 August, 2023

21. The fact that no independent witnesses were cited or FIR No. 193/2019 State Vs. Abdul Majid Page No. 11 of 12 examined, in circumstances when presence of public and independent person could have been easily secured, cast a serious doubt over the case of the prosecution. Further, it was explained by the PWs that from where seal of "SK" procured and why seal handing over memo is not on record. It is also not explained from where pulanda was procured. In view of what has been taken note by this court, the possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid deficiencies in the case of the prosecution are sufficient enough to raise a doubt on the veracity of the entire prosecution case against the accused and extend the benefit of doubt to him.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.P. Government Through Collector, ... vs J.R. Bhatta on 6 May, 1955

There appears to be no justification therefore for the plaintiff not to have included the relief in question in the plaint as it was instituted on 2-1-1947. Even in this Court, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the -- 'State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (A)', on which the plaintiff-respondent relies, had been passed on 11-2-1954 and published in the April, 1954 issue of the All India Reporter, seven months before the present application for amendment was filed on 23-11-1954.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - R Dayal - Full Document

Malleshappa Hanamappa vs State Of Mysore on 7 December, 1960

His lordship did not enter into any discussion at all and did not state clearly in his said judgment as to what the ambit of that pleasure is. It seems to me that that question as to how far the doctrine of pleasure extends and whether it goes beyond dismissal were not specifically raised and in any event not argued before his lordship in the manner in which they have been raised and argued before us. It should also be mentioned that his lordship made no reference in his judgment to Abdul Majid case [1954 - II L.L.J. 678] (supra) to which I shall refer hereafter and in which there is, in my opinion, a clear observation of Mahajan, C.J., to the effect that the doctrine of pleasure concerns itself with tenure of office of a civil servant. For these reasons I am unable to agree with the view expressed by his lordship in the said case on this point.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

G R M Jewellers vs State Of on 31 December, 2025

162. But despite the decisions in Abdul Majid [State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, (1954) 1 SCC 177 : AIR 1954 SC 245] and Vidhyawati [State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati, AIR 1962 SC 933] , this Court fell into a slippery slope in Kasturi Lal [Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039] . It was a case where the partner of a firm dealing in bullion and other goods was arrested and detained in police custody and the gold and silver that he was carrying was seized by the police. When he was released later, the silver was returned but the Head Constable who effected the arrest misappropriated the gold and fled away to Pakistan in October 1947. The suit filed by Kasturi Lal for recovery of the value of the gold, was resisted on the ground that this was not a case of negligence of the servants of the State and that even if negligence 18 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9513 of 2024 was held proved against the police officers the State could not be held liable. While upholding the contention of the State, this Court said : (AIR p. 1046, para 21) "21. ... If a tortious act is committed by a public servant and it gives rise to a claim for damages, the question to ask is : was the tortious act committed by the public servant in discharge of statutory functions which are referable to, and ultimately based on, the delegation of the sovereign powers of the State to such public servant? If the answer is in the affirmative, the action for damages for loss caused by such tortious act will not lie. On the other hand, if the tortious act has been committed by a public servant in discharge of duties assigned to him not by virtue of the delegation of any sovereign power, an action for damages would lie. The act of the public servant committed by him during the course of his employment is in this category of cases, an act of a servant who might have been employed by a private individual for the same purpose."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next