Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 176 (3.27 seconds)
Documents citing Shankaria vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 April, 1978

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru. Cbi on 17 May, 2013

(e) As regards the issue of time for reflection is concerned, the Courts have time and again held that no straight jacket formula can be applied and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The argument advanced by the appellants that at Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 187 least 24 hours time should have been given ( in the light of Sarwan Singh Judgment, AIR 1957 SC 637) does not hold good in the facts of the present case and as has been also discussed in Henry Westmuller case and in the case of Shankaria versus State of Rajasthan AIR 1978 SC 1248 ( 3 Judges).
Patna High Court Cites 189 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Anil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru.Cbi on 17 May, 2013

(e) As regards the issue of time for reflection is concerned, the Courts have time and again held that no straight jacket formula Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 187 can be applied and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The argument advanced by the appellants that at least 24 hours time should have been given ( in the light of Sarwan Singh Judgment, AIR 1957 SC 637) does not hold good in the facts of the present case and as has been also discussed in Henry Westmuller case and in the case of Shankaria versus State of Rajasthan AIR 1978 SC 1248 ( 3 Judges).
Patna High Court Cites 188 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Rajan Tiwary vs State Of Bihar Thru.C.B.I on 17 May, 2013

(e) As regards the issue of time for reflection is concerned, the Courts have time and again held that no straight jacket formula Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 187 can be applied and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The argument advanced by the appellants that at least 24 hours time should have been given ( in the light of Sarwan Singh Judgment, AIR 1957 SC 637) does not hold good in the facts of the present case and as has been also discussed in Henry Westmuller case and in the case of Shankaria versus State of Rajasthan AIR 1978 SC 1248 ( 3 Judges).
Patna High Court Cites 188 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Cbi vs Hopeson Ningshen & Others on 31 May, 2014

16.6 In the present case the accused was produced before the court on 12.06.2009 and recording of his confession was fixed for 14.06.2009 and as such was given 48 hours time to decide whether or not he should make a confession. Not only that on 14.06.2009 also the accused was given sufficient time to think by leaving him in the chamber alone for more than an hour as reflected in the proceedings dated 14.06.2009Ex. PW37/D, and further he remained out of sight of any police official for more than three hours before recording his statement Ex. PW37/F. Nothing has been brought on record to show that he was persuaded or coerced to make a confession, so as afford him a longer period. And as such the accused was given sufficient time for reflection/think over his decision to make a confession. Reference with advantage can be had to the decisions in 70 of 173 RC No. IMPH­2009­S0002 & IMPH­2009­S0003­CBI­ACB IMPHAL CBI versus Hopeson Ningshen & Others Babubhai Udesinh Parmar (supra) and Sarwan Singh (supra), Shankaria (supra) and Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab (supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mulo Rakait vs . State Of Meghalaya on 23 February, 2024

18. The next plea canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants was that the appellants were not given sufficient time much less 24 hours before obtaining confession statements from them, which is contrary to the settled law. We emphasize here that there is no hard and fast rule that accused must be given 24 hours of time. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case (Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan), referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is a duty of the Magistrate to ensure that that accused persons are freed from the possibility of influence by the Police by giving adequate time to them and there is no necessity for the Magistrate to wait for 24 hours and thereafter obtain 164 Cr.P.C. statements from the accused. Therefore, the argument advanced to that effect is not helpful to the appellants.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - W Diengdoh - Full Document

Mulo Rakait vs . State Of Meghalaya on 23 February, 2024

18. The next plea canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants was that the appellants were not given sufficient time much less 24 hours before obtaining confession statements from them, which is contrary to the settled law. We emphasize here that there is no hard and fast rule that accused must be given 24 hours of time. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case (Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan), referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is a duty of the Magistrate to ensure that that accused persons are freed from the possibility of influence by the Police by giving adequate time to them and there is no necessity for the Magistrate to wait for 24 hours and thereafter obtain 164 Cr.P.C. statements from the accused. Therefore, the argument advanced to that effect is not helpful to the appellants.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - W Diengdoh - Full Document

Drojan Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 April, 2011

47. From the above discussion it is apparent that the Division Bench in Harpal (supra) and other matters did not take into consideration the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Aman & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan(supra) categorically holding that under section 4 of the Identification of Prisioners Act, 1920, the police is competent to take specimen finger prints of the accused and similarly in Shankaria Vs State of Rajasthan, (1978) 3 SCC 435 the provision of section 4 & 5 of the Identification of Prisioners act, 1920 were considered and it was held that the police is competent under section 4 of the said act to take specimen fingerprints of the accused.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 7 - A Kumar - Full Document

Bhupender Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 April, 2011

47. From the above discussion it is apparent that the Division Bench in Harpal (supra) and other matters did not take into consideration the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Aman & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan(supra) categorically holding that under section 4 of the Identification of Prisioners Act, 1920, the police is competent to take specimen finger prints of the accused and similarly in Shankaria Vs State of Rajasthan, (1978) 3 SCC 435 the provision of section 4 & 5 of the Identification of Prisioners act, 1920 were considered and it was held that the police is competent under section 4 of the said act to take specimen fingerprints of the accused.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 13 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next