Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Sunita Devi on 9 May, 2014

South-West District vs . on 21 May, 2014

8. In her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused Sita denied the entire evidence put to her. She categorically stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She stated that she had been apprehended from her house and nothing as State v. Sita Devi FIR No. 263/13 P.S.: Dwarka North Page 4 of 17 alleged had been recovered from her possession. She did not lead any evidence in her defence.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

16. It Has Been Held In Case Of "Sadhu ... vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) on 22 May, 2014

State v. Sunita U/s 61 Punjab Excise Act FIR No. 253/02 PS Paschim Vihar PW2/C at his instance. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/D and Lady Ct. Sheela conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW2/E. The accused was released on bail at the spot. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. He identified the accused and the case property in the court. However an observation was made by the court that most of the quarter bottles produced as case property were empty.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

14. It Has Been Held In Case Of "Sadhu ... vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) on 26 May, 2014

7. He called at PS from PCO nearby. He admitted that the PCO owner did not join the proceeding though he asked to do so. Few peoples around the jhuggis were also asked to join the investigation but none agreed and left away without disclosing their names and addresses. IO arrived at the spot after 10 State v. Sunita U/s 61 Punjab Excise Act FIR No. 585/04 PS Paschim Vihar minutes approximately. No lady constable arrived at the spot. He admitted that the signature on two documents are slightly different as at one point, it is the initial and on the other there is full signature of the witness. He did not remember the time of arrest of accused. It took two and half hour approximately in the completion of the proceedings at the spot. He signed arrest memo and seizure memo. Form M­29 was prepared in triplicate.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sunita on 3 July, 2014

(b) PW2 i.e. HC Jagmal Singh was the MHCm. He deposed that on 8.9.2000, SI Praveen Kumar had deposited plastic katta and plastic State Vs. Sunita; FIR No.292/2000; PS Anand Parbat 3/ box alongwith Form M29 in the malkhana and entry to this effect was made by him. He further stated that on 22.9.2000, the sample was sent through Ct. Vijay Pal to the excise lab.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Kumar vs Union Territory on 9 February, 2016

Besides, the Apex Court had adjudicated the claims for recruitment in view of the higher qualifications of applicants vide its judgment dated 24.09.2014 in the case of State of Punjab vs. Anita Devi and has held that unless it is specifically mentioned in the rules that higher qualification will pre-suppose the possession of lower qualifications, the applicants with higher qualifications cannot be considered for appointment in violation of the notified qualifications at the time of recruitment. Since in the present case the prescribed qualification advertised was B.A. with English as an Elective subject and both the applicants do not possess this, their cases have rightly been ignored for promotion as TGT English by the respondents. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1