Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 117 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. And Anr. vs Jaggo Alias Jagdish And Ors. on 30 March, 1971

State vs Jagdish Jaggu on 16 January, 2026

4) Offence complained of : u/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 6) Final order : Acquittal 7) The date of such order : 16.01.2026 Date of Institution : 11.07.2019 Final Arguments heard on : 16.01.2026 Judgment reserved on : 16.01.2026 Judgment announced on : 16.01.2026 State Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggu FIR No. 178/19 U/s. 33/38 Delhi Excise Act 1/10 JUDGMENT 1) The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 15.03.2019 at
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

13. It Has Been Held In Case Of "Sadhu ... vs State Of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime on 9 October, 2014

7. PW-3 ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 08.02.2005 he was posted at PP Mianwali PS Paschim Vihar. On that day, MHC(M) had handed over him to the sample of the liquor with the seal of MD along with form M-29 and he deposited State v. Jagdish @ Jagga U/s 61 Punjab Excise Act FIR No. 1008/04 PS Paschim Vihar 4/10 the same in the excise lab, ITO vide RC No. 229/21/05. The samples were not tampered as long as it remained with him.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish on 21 November, 2007

State Vs. Jagdish the accused was earlier married and had a daughter from the earlier marriage and it cannot be ruled out that deceased may not be very comfortable with aforesaid fact. I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2 can not be relied upon for convicting the accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of case I am of the considered opinion that the charge against accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jagdish Etc on 8 January, 2014

7. PW 2 Sh. Prem Nath deposed that he does not remember the date of incident. However it was the day of Holi of 2006. It was 4/5'O clock in the evening while he was sitting at his Sweets shop situated at a distance of 700 meter from the place of occurrence, he saw that accused persons were beating his son Lalit Kumar with a danda and Saria. Some of the boys had also come to him and informed about the State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 3/10 FIR no. 502/06 incident. He alongwith his son Devi Kumar immediately rushed there and saw that accused persons were beating his son Lalit Kumar. As soon as they reached there, accused persons ran away from there. His son Dev Kumar alongwith 2­3 neighbours took his injured son to AIMS hospital. He sustained injuries on his chest. Some of the accused persons were known to him even prior to the incident. He was interrogated by the police. However, his statement was not recorded. He also made complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police in writing. His cross examination was deferred but later on he reportedly got expired and hence remained uncross­examined.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State vs Gani Mohammad on 10 March, 1988

10. I agree with the view taken by this Court in State v. Jagdish and Shivcharan Lal v. The State (supra) and by the Division Benches of Karnataka and Allahabad High Courts in State of Karnataka v. Chandrappa 1981 Cri LJ 1347 and State of U. P. v. Salezar 1984 Cri LJ 315 respectively. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. L. R. Choudhary, appearing for the respondent, is upheld that appeal lay to the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra under Section 11(2) of the Probation of Offender's Act, 1958 and not to this Court against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra dt. Aug. 23, 1986 in the instant case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next