Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1070 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2010

Sunil Kumar vs . The State (Da) on 3 January, 2023

(a) Item A- of Appendix 'B' (b) As per label declaration for proprietary foods. (c) As per provisions of the Act and Rules, for both above. 1 Test for Formalin D. Pearson Positive Shall be positive 2 Moisture I.S.10484:1983 60.76% Not more than 70.0% 3 Milk fat contains on I.S.2785: 1979 46.99% Not less than 50.0% CA No. 113/2017 Sunil Kumar Vs. The State 24/25 dry weight basis 4 B.R. of extracted Fat A.O.A.C.18th 41.2 --- at 400 C edition 5 Test for starch I.S. 1479 Part I Negative Shall be negative 1960 6 Test for Sugar -do- Negative Shall be negative 7 Test for colour -do- Negative Free from extraneous synthetic food colour
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs . State on 11 April, 2018

3. The   complaint   was   filed,   thereafter,   pre­ summoning   evidence   was   recorded.     The   appellant   was summoned and thereafter post summoning evidence was lead.  The respondent no. 2 proved her case in the criminal CA-167/17 Page no.4/18 CA No. 167/2017 Sunil Kumar Vs. State by appearing as CW­1 and reiterated the contents of the complaint and, interalia, stated that she was married with the   appellant   on   26.04.2002   as   per   Hindu   rites   and ceremonies   and   thereafter   appellant   has   stated   to   have performed second marriage with said Yogita.   CW­2 ASI Jagmeshwar Dayal proved the summoned record.   CW­3 Smt.   Sabita   Dass   proved   the   record   from   Delhi Commission for Women where said Yogita, second wife of the appellant had filed a complaint but the parties failed to   appear,   therefore,   the   said   complaint   was   closed   on 27.08.2013.     CW­4   Sh.   Arun   Kumar   Shastri   proved   the factum of marriage of the appellant with Yogita.  CW­5 Sh. Umed Singh, father of the respondent no. 2, who deposed that appellant was married to his daughter on 26.04.2002 and   father   of   appellant   demanded   Rs.2   lacs   and   other articles at the time of marriage.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs . State on 26 September, 2018

ii) That the alleged eye witness, who happens to be police officials in the Police Station where the present FIR was lodged was examined as eye witness by the IO on Page No.5 of 16 CA No.89/2018 Sunil Kumar Vs. State 02.03.2001,   whereas   the   accident   has   taken   place   on 16.12.2000,   therefore,   the   alleged   eye   witness   has   been planted   by   the   IO   in   order   to   falsely   implicated   the appellant in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gulab @ Gulla S/O Sh. Sumat Ram vs State on 29 May, 2019

13. It is pertinent to notice that there is nothing in the statement of PW3 Dr. Arvind Kumar that on medical examination, there was even a hint of any sodomy. Prosecution is obliged to prove through the concerned doctor, whether on medical examination, it can be inferred that whether any sodomy was committed. It is also the duty of the prosecution to prove that in the manner the said act is alleged to have been committed could have been committed without any injury. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the said act could be done in the manner as alleged without any injury. Admittedly, as per MLC, there is no injury or CA No. 8301/16 and 8302/16 , Gulab Vs. State, Sunil v. State 29.05.2019 Page no. 6 of 10 tenderness found in the anal or associated area. Medical evidence do not at all corroborate the statement of PW1.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Hari Narain vs State Of Delhi on 5 August, 2011

5. Even as per the FIR, the bus driver had come down of the vehicle and after seeing what had happened had run away from the spot. FIR would not mention his description or name or other particulars in any manner. The record would show that the appellant was arrested by the I.O. on 22.09.2001 vide arrest memo Ex. PW 5/F after personal search vide memo Ex. PW 5/E. The said two documents purport to have been attested by a witness named Surinder Kumar son of Sh. Udey Singh. They would not indicate as to what connection the said Surender Kumar had with the appellant. Ex. PW 5/G shows that the appellant was released on the basis of bail bond submitted by the said Surender Kumar son of Sh. Udhey Singh resident of Crl. Appeal No. 26/11 Sunil Kumar Vs. The State 3 of 8 253 Nehru Colony (Patera), Badarpur, New Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs State on 11 January, 2017

1. Revisionist has assailed the order dated 07.12.2016 whereby his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC was dismissed by the Ld. MM. Revisionist had assailed the said order stating that the trial court has committed grave error of law by not appreciating the material facts available on Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 1 record. Order of the Ld. Trial court dated 07.12.2016 is bad in law and is contrary to the circumstances of the case and is therefore liable to be set aside. Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the factum that whereabouts and residential address of the accused no. 1 namely Hawa Singh is unknown from past many years. Also, as per the ATRs filed by the concerned IO, accused no. 1 has not joined investigation since the revisionist has filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC and IO has failed to secure his presence and verify the veracity of allegations made against him. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that till date original GPAs have not been seized by the IO from accused no. 4 namely K.P. Singh, despite the fact as per ATR dated 17.11.2015 and 22.01.2016 submitted by the concerned IO, he has joined the investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Addl. Sessions Judge­06 vs Monu S/O Late Sh. Bharat on 28 April, 2018

In   this   case,   the   case   of   the   prosecution   remained   in   the   realm   of suspicion but did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt about the alleged occurrence of sexual assault and it is a well settled principle of law as settled in   Sunil Kumar Vs. State, 2015 IIIAD (Delhi) 568 Crl.A 1213/2013 201 that,    'suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof'.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next