Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.71 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Ravi @ Munna on 11 October, 1999

Cc No.183/2019 State vs . Tara Dutt Etc. on 27 September, 2021

68. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the CD Ex.PW11/B and DVD Ex.PW19/B are not admissible in evidence as their authenticity was not got verified by way of examining the same from any expert as provided under section 45A of Indian Evidence Act and thus, without the examination and expert opinion, the CD/DVDs Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW19/B are not admissible in evidence. It is further argued that neither specimen i.e. admitted photograph of the accused was taken by the prosecution nor any such footage was got examined by any expert for verifying the contents/footage of Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW19/B and in this regard reliance has been placed upon Subhash Chand & Ors. Vs CBI, MANU/DE/0060/2005 as well as on State Vs Ravi A. Munna, 2000(1) JCC (Delhi) 115. In both these cases, the digital evidence was in the form of tape recorded conversation which is certainly different from CCTV footage and thus, the observation made in those cases is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the above cases are distinguishable on facts from the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharambir Khattar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 May, 2009

(iii) The intercepted calls do not indicate any criminal conspiracy between the parties. The statement of the Investigating Officer Shri M.C.Kashyap also showed `beyond doubt‟ that the CD containing the calls "were doctored to the disadvantage of the petitioner". Reliance was placed on the judgment in Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur AIR 1982 SC 1043 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State v. Ravi @ Munna 82 (1999) DLT 730 to contend that a duplicate copy of the recorded conversation could not be a valid piece of evidence and ought not to be relied upon for framing charges against the accused. It was submitted that reliance placed by the learned Special Judge on the CFSL report also was erroneous.
Delhi High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 110 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next