Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 106 (2.70 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P vs Boota Singh & Others on 22 August, 1978

Deputy Director Of Enforcement vs A.M. Ceaser on 10 March, 1998

6. Unfortunately, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has not understood the difference between the confession under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and the statement under Section 40(3) of FERA and because of this lack of understanding of the difference between these two provisions, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has applied the dictum in State of U.P. v. Boota Singh to hold that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused in the case. In the case relied upon by the lower Appellate Court, the accused, who made a judicial confession, under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, later on retracted the statement. It should be borne in mind that no accused is expected to make a statement and if he makes such a confession statement, which brings out the offence, he is liable to be punished and therefore, a person, who is not bound to make confession with regard to the commission of the offence, if still admits the commission of the offence, unless there are strong circumstances which made him to confess, and also material particulars corroborating that what he had stated is true, such retracted confession would not be acted upon. But under Section 40 of FERA, the Enforcement Directorate have powers to issue summons to any person for the purpose of any violation under the said Act and Sub-section 3 reads, "All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by authorised agents, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents as may be required."
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Prajimon @ Praji vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2022

In State of UP v. Boota Singh, 1979 (1) SCC 31, the Apex court explaining Budh Sen (Supra) held that by holding that evidence of identification for the first time at the trial was of a weak character, it merely meant that where the evidence of a witness in court is not tested by prior identification parade held in jail, not much reliance can be placed on such evidence. This however does not lay down a rule of universal application that the identification evidence is a very weak type of evidence. Where the witness correctly identifies the accused at a TIP held by a Magistrate after observing all the essential formalities and taking the necessary precautions and then identifies the accused also in court, the evidence of identification can be believed unless the evidence of witness suffers from some other infirmity. Moreover, the evidence of identification becomes stronger if the witness has an opportunity of seeing the accused not for a few minutes but for some length of time, in broad day light, when he would be able to note the features of the accused more carefully than on seeing the accused in a dark night for a few minutes.
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avinash Chandra Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 31 May, 2018

35. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with respect to the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.507 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Ajay Yadav and another) connected with Sessions Trial No.282 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Pathroo Singh) and Sessions Trial No.255 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Singh). The conclusion of the enquiry report dated 02.09.2016 in the department enquiry no. 02 of 2014 has already been extracted above which indicates that the charges against the petitioner were not found proved, and consequently the Administrative Committee in its meeting on 14.09.2016 accepted the report of the Enquiry Judge and decided to drop the matter against the petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Balram Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2025

9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities authorities,, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-6), P passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon in case titled as State vs. Boota Singh, Singh, arising out of FIR No. 90 dated 09.11.2020, registered d under Sections 323, 325, 34 of IPC at Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed absconder,, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ghanshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2019

(State of U.P. v. Boota Singh, (1979) 1 SCC 31 ) In Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746 it was held: (SCC pp. 751-52, para 7) "7. ... The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Preetam Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 1 August, 2019

(State of U.P. v. Boota Singh, (1979) 1 SCC 31 ) In Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746 it was held: (SCC pp. 751-52, para 7) "7. ... The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next