Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18567 (3.42 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994

State vs . Balbir Singh Etc. on 29 June, 2012

6. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the convict is hereby sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for State vs. Balbir Singh etc. FIR No. 25/06 P. S. Naraina U/s. 279/337/338/304A/34 IPC period of four months for the offence u/s. 279 IPC as well as for the offence u/s. 337 IPC, a period of six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s. 338 IPC and Rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence u/s. 304 A IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one month. The sentences for the offence u/s. 279 IPC, 337 IPC, 338 IPC & 304 A IPC shall run concurrently.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Balbir Singh on 27 May, 2019

PW4 HC Yashpal Singh deposed that on 11.10.2005, he was posted as FIR No .486/05, State vs. Balbir Singh 4 constable at PP. Burari PS. Timar Pur and on that day, he was on patrolling duty in the area of Sant Nagar Burari where he received a call from the PS to reach at outer ring road Burari red light and he immediately reached at the aforesaid place where a public person namely Rakesh Kumar was apprehending driver namely Balvir Singh along with a truck container bearing number HR 37B 1373. He stated that ASI Balbir Singh/IO was also present at the aforesaid place and IO recorded statement of aforesaid Rakesh Kumar and prepared the rukka and handed it over to him for registration of FIR. Witness stated that he went to PS, got FIR registered and returned back on the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the IO and IO recorded his statement PW5 Retired ASI/Tech Devender Kumar deposed that on 12.10.2005, he mechanically inspected one Tata truck container bearing no. HR 37B 1371, on request of ASI Balbir Singh. Witness proved his mechanical inspection report as EX.PW5/A. PW6 Ishwar Singh denied clicking any photographs of present case FIR and denied knowing anything about the case. Witness was cross­examined by Ld. APP for the State.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanhailal Chowhan vs State Of West Bengal on 5 December, 1994

The Supreme Court in the said decision in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra) has interpreted Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act to the effect inter alia that it is obligatory on the part of the officer concerned to inform the person to be searched that if he so requires he shall be produced before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate as provided in Section 50 and it is obligatory on the part of such Officer to so inform the person to be searched' and failure to inform the person to be searched and if such person so requires failure to take him to the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate would amount to non-compliance of Section 50 which is mandatory and thus it would affect the prosecution ease and vitiate the trial. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant that in this case the accused was not informed before search that if he so required he would be taken before a Gazetted Officer of concerned department or before Magistrate. This argument is however not tenable because, as we have seen from the evidence, the accused was offered to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer but he declined to accept the offer and rather himself produced the incriminating materials from his room. Therefore, if the prosecution evidence is accepted at face value, there has been substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 50. Again it has to be noticed that the question of compliance or non-compliance of Section 50. NDPS Act is relevant only where search of a person is involved and the said section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of person is involved. Search of and recovery from any building, house, room, conveyance or place does not come within the ambit of Section 50, because firstly Section 50 expressly speaks of search.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next