Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.17 seconds)
Documents citing T.P. Razak Alias Nagappan Razak vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 1995

Martaram Thavaraji vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 1999

12. Now taking into consideration the decision in case of T.P.RAZAAK V. STATE OF KERALA 1996 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI.) 57, it is clear that Section 50 is held to be mandatory in cases where search is taken of a person on basis of prior information which was not the case in the facts of the instant case before this Court. It was also argued that because there is no mention in the FIR and Panchnama about the compliance of Section 50, deposition of Investigating Officer may not be accepted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A L Dave - Full Document

Mahesh Laxmanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 May, 2002

The Division Bench, after considering all the relevant authorities of the Honourable Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Advocate, namely, (1) The State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh etc.etc., 1999 S.A.R. (Criminal) 473 = (1999) 6 SCC 172; (2) Kalayath Nassar vs. State of Kerala, 2000 AIR SCW 271; (3) Babu vs. State of Kerala, 1999 S.A.R. (Criminal) 780; (4) T.P. Razak @ Nagappan Razak vs. State of Kerala, (1995) Supple.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - R R Tripathi - Full Document

Abdulla vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2000

While coming to that conclusion the Court had also considered an earlier finding in T.P. Razak v. State of Kerala (1996 SCC (Cri.) 57) where a contrary view had been taken on the facts of that case. That was a case where search of the body revealed a matchbox containing small packets. The version of PW-4, the seizing official with regard to compliance with S. 50 did not find a place in the F.I.R. or in the seizure mahazar. PW-1, who was the other witness examined in the case, also had not supported PW-4 with regard to his version regarding compliance of S. 50.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M R Nair - Full Document

J. Prakash vs State on 18 August, 1997

Under this section, it is obligatory- on the part of the empowered person to inform the person to be searched before search is being effected that he would like to be taken to the Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate. It has been held by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of cases that provisions of Section 50 of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance thereof vitiates the conviction, vide Balbir Singh 's case , Ali Mustafa Abdul Rahman Moose v. State of Kerala, , Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa, , T.P.Razak alias Nagappan Razak v. State of Kerala, 1995 Suppl.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ebanezer Adebaya Alias Monday Obtor vs B.S. Rawat, Collector Of Customs, R & I, ... on 22 April, 1996

20. The same inference also can be drawn from the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of T. P. Razak and Naoappan Razak v. State of Kerala, 1995(2) Scale 385, wherein the Court considered a case where a Sub-Inspector of Police reached the Highway Tourist Home and searched the accused person from whose possession a match-box containing four small packets containing brown sugar weighing 370 mg. was found. In that context the Court held that procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the Act was not followed.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Sheikh Ashraf Abdul Kader vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 4 February, 1997

24. Mr. Ghare also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. P. Razak v. State of Kerala, 1996 SCC (Cri) 57. That case was considered by the Full Bench in the case of Ebabezer Adebaya (1996 Cri LJ 3210) and was distinguished on the ground that the person of the accused was searched and from whose possession a match box containing four small packets containing brown sugar was found and, therefore, it was held that the provisions of Section 50 ought to have been complied with.
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 3 - S S Parkar - Full Document
1   2 Next