Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 134 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing Tapinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 1970

Mauji Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 1994

8. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tapinder Singh's case (1970 Cri LJ 1415) (supra) to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the rule laid down by this Court in Kanhaya Singh's case (1974) 1 Cri LT 465) (supra), I hold that the telephonic message (Exhibit PW 4/A) constitutes the First Information Report, within the contemplation of Section 154 of the Code. The admission made by the appellant to Sub-Inspector Niader Singh (PW 4) is thus hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code as it was made during the investigation of this case. It cannot, therefore, be read against him.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - L S Panta - Full Document

Muzammil Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

(iv). to cryptic, anonymous or oral messages which do not clearly specify a cognizable offence and cannot be treated as an FIR. No exception can be taken if, upon receipt of proper information, another detailed FIR is recorded, and the detailed FIR is treated as the FIR. (Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1970) 2 SCC 113; Vikram v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (1) ALT (crl.) 179 (SC) : 2008 (1) SCJ 227 = (2007) 12 SCC 332).
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Muzammil Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

(iv). to cryptic, anonymous or oral messages which do not clearly specify a cognizable offence and cannot be treated as an FIR. No exception can be taken if, upon receipt of proper information, another detailed FIR is recorded, and the detailed FIR is treated as the FIR. (Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1970) 2 SCC 113; Vikram v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (1) ALT (crl.) 179 (SC) : 2008 (1) SCJ 227 = (2007) 12 SCC 332).
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Judgments In Balbir Singh vs State Of Punjab, (2006) on 9 October, 2009

"29. A dying declaration not being a deposition in court, neither made on oath nor in the presence of the accused and therefore not tested by cross examination is yet admissible in evidence as an exception to the general rule against the admissibility of hearsay. The admissibility is founded on the principle of necessity. The weak points of a dying declaration serve to put the court on its guard while testing its reliability and impose on the court an obligation to closely scrutinise all the relevant attendant circumstances (see TAPINDER SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB). One of the important tests of the reliability of the dying declaration is a finding arrived at by the court as to a satisfaction that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and capable of making a statement at the point of time when the SC No. 111/05 Page 30 of 60 pages 31 dying declaration purports to have been made and/or recorded. The statement may be brief or longish. It is not the length of the statement but the fit state of mind of the victim to narrate the facts of occurrence which has relevance.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Peer Pasha vs National Investigating Agency on 5 April, 2023

(iv). to cryptic, anonymous or oral messages which do not clearly specify a cognizable offence and cannot be treated as an FIR. No exception can be taken if, upon receipt of proper information, another detailed FIR is recorded, and the detailed FIR is treated as the FIR. (Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1970) 2 SCC 113; Vikram v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (1) ALT (crl.) 179 (SC) : 2008 (1) SCJ 227 = (2007) 12 SCC 332).
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Marudhapandiyan vs State, Inspector Of Police on 9 December, 1992

32. That learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Randhir Singh v. The State" 1980 Cri LJ 1397 contending that, after a telephonic message having been received by the police officer attached to a particular police station relating to the cognizance of a cognizable offence and registered the written complaint subsequently given by any of the prosecution party and registering it will be clearly hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure basing on the legal principle enunciated in "Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab" . But, the ratio held in the said decision has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand for the simple reason that P.W. 12 would consistently claim that on receipt of the phone message from the public call office at Kalancheri, he was about to proceed to the scene of occurrence and at that time P.W. 8 appeared before him in the police station and lodged Ex. P1 on the basis of which he registered a case under Ammapet Police Station Cr. No. 146/82 under section 302, I.P.C. and took up further action. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 3 it is seen that it is only P.W. 3 who is the author of the telephonic message that Chinnayan was cut by the appellant/accused. In this context and in the light of the above legal norms and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court that the telephonic message is merely cryptic and anonymous, we are fully satisfied to hold that the ingredients contemplated under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not at all be compelied with in the case and as was rightly argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are fully satisfied to hold that the telephonic message spoken to by P.W. 3 did not amount to be an F.I.R. as contemplated by law and that in all, Ex. P1 would clearly and squarely lands within the ambit of Section 154, Cr.P.C. amounting to be the First Information Report and that accordingly we reject the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant made on the above said aspect.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next