citedby: 64756317

Balwinder Singh Alias Binder vs State Of Punjab on 26 November, 2011

Similar view was taken in Ajay Malik's case (supra), whereas learned State Counsel has cited a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Asif v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 508 in which it has been held that "it is not unusual and rather it is the normal practice that while preparing seizure memos at the spot a police officer leaves the FIR number blank and subsequently after the registration of the case the number of the FIR is written in the space left blank".

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - R K Jain - Full Document

State vs . Satish on 12 May, 2010

20 Moreover, the link evidence is found to be missing. Neither the concerned MHC(M) nor Ct. Satender have entered into witness box. In the case of 1991 CRI. L. J. 2524 MOHD. ASIF V. STATE (DELHI ADMN), it has been observed that there can possibly be no dispute with regard to the proposition that in cases where link evidence is missing to prove that the sealed parcels were not tampered with the, Court has to give benefit of doubt to an accused. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DAULAT RAM AIR 1980 SC 1314 , it has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that while in their custody, the sample was not tampered with before reaching the public analyst.

Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munish Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 May, 2023

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the police party was having computer and printer with them when the petitioner was apprehended. The recovery in the case in hand was of 2112 capsules. MONIKA Average weight of each capsule was 625 mg. Thus, overall weight of 2023.06.02 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2023:PHHC:079743 CRM-M-5683-2023 -3- recovered capsules came out to be 1320 gms. Recovery from the petitioner falls under commercial quantity. He has further submitted that it is common practice that space for FIR number is left blank in the recovery memo for mentioning the same later and after registration of the case, the space kept blank is filled in. In the present case also, the same practice was followed and there was no tampering with any of the record by the police officials. He has relied on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Asif vs. State (Delhi Admn.) - 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 508.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab on 26 November, 2011

Similar is the decision in Ajay Malik and others' case (supra), but in the case of Mohd. Asif v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 508, it has been held that "it is not unusual and rather it is the normal practice that while preparing seizure memos at the spot a police officer leaves the FIR number blank and subsequently after the registration of the case the number of the FIR is written in the space left blank".

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

State vs . Manoj Kumar S/O Kanhiya Prasad, on 29 May, 2010

prosecution and it rather creates an element of doubt because as per the case of prosecution, HC Shiv Charan was the actual MHC(M) at the relevant point of time but HC Shiv Charan has outrightly denied such fact. This means that his statement on record is a bogus statement. 19 It would also be pertinent to mention here that in order to ascertain as to who was MHC(M) at the relevant point of time, concerned SHO was directed to be summoned along with complete record and SHO, PS Prashant Vihar appeared before the Court in person and sought time and claimed that he would take requisite assistance from the concerned IO and would produce the concerned MHC(M) before the Court. Despite that nobody in the world knows as to who was the MHC(M) at the relevant point of time. Deposition of HC Shiv Charan is loud and clear and he is crying hoarse that he was not MHC(M) at the relevant point of time. Thus, link evidence is found to be missing. In the case of 1991 CRI. L. J. 2524 MOHD. ASIF V. STATE (DELHI ADMN), it has been observed that there can possibly be no dispute with regard to the proposition that in cases where link evidence is missing to prove that the sealed parcels were not tampered with the, Court has to give benefit of VS doubt to an accused. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN DAULAT RAM AIR 1980 SC 1314, it has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that while in their custody, the sample was not tampered with FIR No.415/07 PS Prashant Vihar page 10 of 13 VS before reaching the public analyst. In SUBHASH CHAND MISHRA STATE 2002(2) JCC1379 , it was observed that prosecution is under an obligation to prove that the sample delivered to CFSL was in the same condition and there was no possibility of being tampered with. In MOHD HASIM VS STATE ( DELHI) 1999 ( 3) C.C. CASES DHC 149 and EZE VAL OKELE @ VAL EZE VS NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 2005 1 AD ( CR.) DHC 185, it has been held that prosecution is bound to produce every link evidence that sealed pullandas of case property from the time they were taken till they were deposited in the malkhana and till they were deposited in the FSL, the seals thereon were not tampered with, by examining all the witnesses who had handled the sample. It was also held that if any link was missing, then it could not be said that prosecution had ruled out the possibility of sample being tampered with or changed and accused would be entitled for acquittal. 20 Sample was taken to FSL by PW5 Ct. Devender. According to him, he had taken the FSL form as well along with pullandas. If that was really so then he would have certainly mentioned such fact even in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In his such statement dated 22.08.2007, he simply claimed that he had taken two pullandas vide Road Certificate No. 96/21/07 and deposited the pullandas in FSL. He did not make even a whisper that he was given FSL form. Moreover, Road Certificate was also never produced before the Court. Acknowledgment given by the FIR No.415/07 PS Prashant Vihar page 11 of 13 FSL was also never produced before the Court. Therefore, there is great uncertainty with respect to the fact whether FSL form was also sent to FSL with pullandas or not. The entire ambiguity could have been removed easily, had the Road Certificate been placed on record but for the reasons, best known to the investigating agency and prosecution, no necessity was felt of placing on record such Road Certificate? Learned Addl. P.P. sought one more opportunity to produce on record such Road Certificate. However, I do not find any merit in such request primarily due to the reason that there is big question mark as to who was the custodian of case property as MHC(M). Nobody knows as to what has actually been taken under such Road Certificate and what type of acknowledgment was endorsed by the concerned forensic laboratory while accepting such sample pullanda.

Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ramu Jaiswal, on 3 August, 2011

L. J. 2524 MOHD. ASIF V. STATE (DELHI ADMN), it has been observed that there can possibly be no dispute with regard to the proposition that in cases where link evidence is missing to prove that the sealed parcels were not tampered with the, Court has to give benefit of doubt to an accused. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DAULAT RAM AIR 1980 SC 1314, it has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that while in their custody, the sample was not tampered with before reaching the public analyst. In SUBHASH CHAND MISHRA VS STATE 2002(2) JCC1379, it has been observed that prosecution is under an obligation to prove that the sample delivered to CFSL was in the same condition and there was no possibility of being tampered with. In MOHD HASIM VS STATE ( DELHI) 1999 ( 3) C.C. CASES DHC 149 and EZE VAL OKELE @ VAL EZE VS NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 2005 1 AD ( CR.) DHC 185, it has been held that prosecution is bound to produce every link evidence that sealed pullandas of case property from the time they were taken till they were deposited in the malkhana and till they were deposited in the FSL, the seals thereon were not tampered with, by examining all the witnesses who had handled the sample. It was also held that if any link was missing, then it could not be said that FIR No. 28/09 PS Crime Branch page 9 of 11 prosecution had ruled out the possibility of sample being tampered with or changed and accused would be entitled for acquittal. In the case of Eza Vel Kal. NCB 116 (2205) DLT 399, it has been held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra that prosecution is under obligation to establish on record as to who had taken the sample of the contraband to CRCL and also to prove that there was no tampering with the sample during that period.

Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search