Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 76 (5.59 seconds)
Documents citing Udai Bhan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 January, 1962

Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 30 May, 2024

Now it is fairly settled that the expression „fact discovered‟ includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : 74 IA 65] ; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [1962 Supp (2) SCR 830 : AIR 1962 SC 1116 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251] )."
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Somnath Sharma vs State Of Sikkim on 11 October, 2018

128. So also in Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [1962 Supp (2) SCR 830 : AIR 1962 SC 1116 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251] J.L. Kapur, J. after referring to Kottaya case [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : 74 IA 65] stated the legal position as follows: (SCR p. 837) 53 Crl. Appeal No. 14 of 2016 Somnath Sharma v. State of Sikkim "A discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence."
Sikkim High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Ranjan Singh on 14 August, 2012

"15. At one time it was held that the expression "fact discovered" in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, as noted in Pulukuri Kottaya's case (supra) and in Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1116)."
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - C R Dash - Full Document

Tekam Laxmi, Warangal Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., Hyd., on 25 August, 2018

18. At one time it was held that the expression "fact discovered" in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, as noted in Pulukuri Kotayya case [(1946-47) 74 IA 65 : AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533] and in Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1116 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251]
Telangana High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Nitin @ Sonu & Anr Fir No. 275/2014 on 2 March, 2020

in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowl- edge of the accused as to this, as noted in Palukuri Kotayya's case (supra) and in Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1116)."
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2020

15. At one time it was held that the expression "fact discovered" in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, as noted in Pulukuri Kottaya case [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 74 IA 65 : 48 Cri LJ 533] and in Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1116 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251]
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - P Shrivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next