Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing P. Narayana Murthy, Hyderabad Another vs Chairman, Sbi, Maharastra Another on 22 September, 2023

Mohammed Khudarathulla vs Mohammed Shareef Alias Ansar on 9 September, 2024

The best witnesses would be immediate neighbours to speak about the theft however the PW6 did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the spot mahazar for the alleged theft taken place in the house of PW1 between 19/03/2017 till 01/04/2017 as the boundaries of house of PW1 is bounded on the East by the shop of Rayathiv dress Materials, West by Mubark Mohalla Masid, North by No. 5 belongs to HBS Mubark store and South by house No. 9 belongs to Nayaz Ahamed . It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sardar Pasha vs Mohammed Shareef Alias Ansar on 9 September, 2024

The best witnesses would be immediate neighbours to speak about the theft however the PW6 did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the spot mahazar for the alleged theft taken place on 04/04/2017. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality 15 KABC030393112017 CC No.15722/2017 during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaik Tanveer Alam vs Mohammed Shareef Alias Ansar on 9 September, 2024

The best witnesses would be immediate neighbours to speak about the theft however the PW4 did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the spot mahazar for the alleged theft taken place on 05/02/2017. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yamuna vs Azeez Aseef on 10 September, 2024

However the CW4 and CW5 are not immediate neighbors as they are of Ibrahim Sahib Street and Padarayanapura, Bangalore and the immediate 14 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 neighbors of Jyothirling and refinery Shop are Mani, Vital Rao, Tukaram and house No.2. The best witnesses would be immediate neighbours to speak about the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P8 however the PW4 did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the spot mahazar for the alleged theft taken place on 27/02/2015. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joshine Anthony vs Chandpasha on 21 September, 2024

24. It appears from the cross examination of PW1 that ಮಹಜರ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ಸ್ಥ ಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಜನಸಂದಣಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಂಗಡಿಗಳು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ Thus, the best witnesses would be immediate neighbours around the seizure spot about the drawing of mahazar however the PW2 did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for drawing spot mahazar for the alleged seizure of 7 cattle. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused. So it is safe to hold that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt thereby this court answers the above point No.1 to 3 in the negative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gowtham Chand vs Sharebhardhur on 27 June, 2025

However the PW14/IO did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the search and for drawing seizure mahazar for the alleged theft in the crime No. 135/2011. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of 37 KABC030335682011 CC No.33526/2011 the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
Bangalore District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D .M Venkatesh vs Bharath on 7 July, 2025

21. It was the version of prosecution that the accused No.1 and 2 were in possession of the liquors on 22/04/20218 at 6 pm at Athiguppe, Chandra Layout way to Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Temple, Attiguppe, Bangalore, 7 pm at Nammuru Thindi, 28 KABC030105332019 CC 3624/2019 Nagarbhavi, Bangalore and 8.15 pm at House No.81/1, III Cross, Atthiguppe, Vijayanagara, Bangalore were surrounded with the residential and commercial properties. If such so, why the raiding authority did not make any attempts to join the local inhabitants for seizure, which raises the doubt about the fairness in seizing the alleged liquors from the alleged spots. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 SC 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, the benefit ensured has to go to the accused.
Bangalore District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next