Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 206 (2.48 seconds)
Documents citing Ankush Maruti Shinde . vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 2019

Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2021

In the same judgment, The Supreme Court, relying upon an earlier judgment passed in V.K. Sasikala Vs. State - (2012) 9 SCC 771, Highlighted the importance of the police in examining the documents that maybe in support of the accused and held in the following words "As observed by this Court in V.K. Sasikala v. State [V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] , though it is only such reports which support the prosecution case that are required to be forwarded to the Court under Section 173(5), in every situation where some of the seized papers and the documents do not support the prosecution case and, on the contrary, support the accused, a duty is cast on the investigating officer to evaluate the two sets of documents and materials collected and, if required, to exonerate the accused at that stage itself".2 1 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10 at page 504 2 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10.3 at page 505
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Shukla - Full Document

Udit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2020

In Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, The Supreme Court examined a case arising from a fight between two groups in 1 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10 at page 504 2 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10.3 at page 505 15 which three people died. The police are alleged to have examined the case only from the standpoint of one, completely ignoring the defence of the other. Emphasising on the importance of a fair investigation, the Supreme Court held "The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating officer "is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - A Sreedharan - Full Document

Nagesh Rajshekhar Mense vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2023

The same Division Bench had occasion to deal with similar issue at later point of time in the case of Ankush Vs. State of Maharashtra. Although the matter was at interim stage, the reasons assigned by the Court are vital and important. The Court has analyzed Section 328 of I.P.C. The facts of the said case indicate that on search 1970.80 kg of scented tobacco, pan masala was seized. Crime was registered under Sections 26, 27 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and under Sections 188, 272,273 and 328 of the I.P.C. The petitioner therein had challenged the F.I.R. relating to the aforesaid offences. It was observed that if section 328 of I.P.C. is properly analyzed, then prima facie, the Court is of the view that Section 328 of I.P.C. can be made applicable in view of the language used in the later part of the Section. The accused is running a business establishment and at the time of search of his business, huge quantity of the contraband was seized. Therefore, prima facie case of the accused is covered by later part of Section 328 of I.P.C. In para 29 of the said decision, it was observed that, since the case of the petitioner is covered by the Sajakali Jamadar 61 of 66 Common Order-ABA-799-2022 and ors.doc later part of the language of Section 328 of I.P.C., at least prima facie, an impediment cannot be created for the Investigating Officer to investigate into the crime. If the prayer made by the applicant is granted, it would amount to stalling the investigation which is right of the Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter, especially when prima facie material is available on record that the accused has committed offence for which the crime is registered against him. The prayer for stay for investigation was rejected. Prayers for no coercive steps or arrest of the accused in the said crime were also rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 1 - P D Naik - Full Document

Potluri Krishna Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 30 November, 2020

8. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Inspector of Police, SOT, Bhongir is not having jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and he has no right or authority to go to the site. At the most he has to inform/lodge complaint to the local police. Instead of doing so, he went to the site illegally. He submits that the Police have implicated the petitioners herein in the present case. He would further submit that the first petitioner has received good citizen award from the Commissioner of Police in the year 2011. There are no witnesses to the alleged incident. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P.1, Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of Maharashtra2, D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal3 and A.Omkar v. The Commissioner and others4. By placing reliance on the above said judgments, the learned Senior Counsel sought to quash the proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2020.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next