Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Tuncay Alankus And Anr. vs Union Of India on 26 May, 2000

1 S/ vs Suresh Pahalwan & Ors on 19 November, 2008

On behalf of prosecution it is argued that accused Lekh Raj conspired with the other accused persons and instigated them to kill the deceased Surender Gupta. It is argued that it is not necessary that each conspirator must know all details of agreement nor he is required to be 20 S/vs Suresh Pahalwan & Ors participant at every stage of the offence. It is not essential that all the conspirators should participate in the crime. Reliance is placed upon the authority Tuncay Alankus Vs. Union of India 2000 (2) CC Cases HC 275 Delhi. It is argued that the lapse of the investigation should not prevent the court from accepting eyewitnesses evidence if it is otherwise truthful.
Delhi District Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cbi vs . C.K. Ramakrishnan (A-1) And Others on 9 July, 2018

In Balwant Kaur vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh 1988 AIR 139 (supra) it has been observed that the corroboration has to be of two kinds; first belonging to the area of reassurance of the credit of the approver himself as a trustworthy witness; and the second- which arises for conclusion after the court is satisfied about the creditability of the approver-as to the corroboration in material particulars not only of the commission of the crime but also of the complicity of other CNR No. DLCT01-000024-1998 page 219 of 251 accused-person in the crime. If on the first area the court is not satisfied, the second does not arise. However, the two areas of corroboration are not two separate, water- tight compartments. The evidence as a whole will have to be examined to reach conclusions on both aspects.
Delhi District Court Cites 138 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Charanjeet Verma/Aero Club vs State And Ors. on 13 March, 2007

7. Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Tuncay Alankus v. Union of India and Ors. 2000 Crl. L.J. 3280 to say that as the accused, being entrusted with property or with dominion over property dishonestly appropriated and converted the goods to their own use, such property, and has dishonestly used or disposed off that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, they committed the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - S R Bhat - Full Document

State vs . Umesh Thatera & Ors on 13 May, 2011

13. From the above discussion regarding the testimonies of these witnesses, this court is satisfied that all the ingredients for the offence of 9 FIR NO­ 752/07 criminal breach of trust as define in section 405 IPC are made out. When the gold bangles were handed over to the accused for cleaning they were entrusted with property and when they took and ran away with the same they had clearly acted in a dishonest manner, dishonestly using the gold bangles in violation of the implied contract which entailed that they would return the bangles after cleaning the same and would receive some renumeration for the same. The accused never returned the gold bangles and infact ran away with the same. Thus the accused acted in a dishonest manner. The law governing criminal breach of trust has been laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in TUNCAY ALANKUS Vs. UNION OF INDIA, 2000 (86) DLT 62, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has stated that a person can be said to have misappropriated some property if he has used it in a way different from what he was bound to do by virtue of a contract. Now the contract as mentioned in Section 405 itself could be both expresses and implied. There can be no dispute to the fact that when the accused ran away with the gold bangles entrusted to them for the purposes of cleaning they clearly acted in violation of the terms of entrustment and of the duty to act in a particular way only with respect to the bangles.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1