Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 66 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Anil Batra And Ors. on 2 April, 2008

3.Title State vs . Anil & Others on 25 August, 2014

41. Further more in order to prove the offence of theft, only moving of the property by the accused persons without the consent of the complainant is not essential. It has to be further proved that FIR No. 178/2005 State Vs Anil & Others 14 of 18 there was a dishonest intention to take the movable property out of the possession of the complainant and the property was moved with that intention. This intention is not proved in deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fi vs . R.K. Kaushik Etc. Page 1 Of 19 on 6 April, 2013

In the present case, admittedly the sample was lifted on 03.07.2000 for analysis and same was got analyzed by Director, CFL on 19.03.2001 i.e. after about more than 8 ½ months from the date of lifting the sample, therefore, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, there appears to be substance in the contention of the accused that during the aforesaid period, the sample commodity could not have remained fit for analysis and, therefore, the analysis results of Director CFL would not depict the correct findings. This fact also find support as there are variation in both the reports so far as 'milk fat of dry matter' is concerned. In PA's Report Ex. PW 1/F, milk fat of dry matter is to the tune of 36.56% whereas, the Director CFL vide his certificate dated 19.03.2001 found the same to the tune of 27.3% and as such there are variation upto 9.26% which is much higher than 0.3%, which is stated to be the permissible limit of variation. The variations in the report of aforesaid two Analysts appears to be on higher side and it goes to show that the sample was not a representative one hence it cannot be said to be representative sample.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next