Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.77 seconds)
Documents citing The U.P. State vs Murtaza Ali And Anr. on 3 April, 1961

State vs . Murtaza on 10 March, 2015

13. The prosecution has failed to examine any public witness therefore, the version of the prosecution has remained uncorroborated by an independent material witness. The witnesses that are examined by the prosecution in the present case are police witnesses, who are interested in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of them being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out. The police witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any public witness in the investigation and still no genuine and sincere efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the testimony of the police witness does not lend sufficient State Vs. Murtaza FIR No. 45/12 U/s 33/53 Delhi Excise Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Murtaza on 16 May, 2015

13. Keeping in view the fact that the version of prosecution witness has remained uncorroborated by any other independent witness regarding the alleged recovery of illicit liquor, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused. It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that:­ 4/5 State Vs. Murtaza FIR No. 189/14 U/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Surat Singh vs Rent Control And Eviction Officer And ... on 6 March, 1964

In U.P. State v. Murtaza Ali, 1961 All LJ 287: (AIR 1961 All 477) a Full Bench of which My Lord the Chief Justice and I were also members, held that a regulation made in 1946 by the State Government under Section 297 of the Municipalities Act was ultra vires Section 297 was amended after 1946, and the regulation was within the bounds of the amended section.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad Pradhan vs District Board on 18 November, 1964

Learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of U. P. State v. Murtaza Ali, 1961 All LJ 287: (AIR 1961 All 477) (FB), in support of his submission that under the scheme of the Act it is the resolution of the Board by which the Engineer stands dismissed and any rule framed by the Government or any notification issued by the Government requiring a framing of charges, calling for an explanation and granting an opportunity to be heard before passing the resolution dismissing him would be ultra vires of the State Government and will not he binding on the Board.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bariat Ullah Khan vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 April, 1963

In the case before us there is no question of any delegated legislation. We have already indicated that the function of giving a hearing under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, though quasi-judicial in nature, had to be exercised by the State Government through some human being, and it was for the purpose of nominating the human being who was to discharge the function of the State Government that an order had to be made by the Governor. Passing of such an order by the Governor cannot be held to be exercise of any power of delegated legislation. We may also add that, in that case, the other two learned judges constituting the Bench did not specifically rely on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to which our attention has been drawn and which we have discussed above. In these circumstances, we do not think that this Full Bench decision can be held to lay down any principle contrary to the view we have expressed above.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Pritpal Singh Rattan Singh vs The Chief Commissioner Of Delhi And Anr. on 3 February, 1965

In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to U. P State v. Murtaza Ali, A I R 1961 All 477 (FB), in which the learned Judges of the Full Bench have held that if a rule purports to have been made under one provision, it cannot be sustained under another provision even though it could have been made under it. But the present impugned rules have been made under the sections to which reference has been made and it has been nobody's case that they should be sustained under a different provision than the provisions under which the same have been made. This argument on the side of the petitioner thus is untenable and cannot possibly prevail.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jabir & Others vs State Of U.P. on 12 July, 2016

3. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/ appellants against the judgement and order dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ballia in Session Trial No. 96 of 1999 (State of U.P. vs. Murtaza and others) convicting and sentencing the appellants Jakir and Kadir for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 333, 336/149, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and fine was also imposed. Appellants Jabir and Shivnath Singh were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 147, 307/149, 333/149, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act as also fine. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next