Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 87 (7.34 seconds)

Harishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 May, 2018

In case of  Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan   Shaikh   and   anr   vs.   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation  reported   in  (2008)   15   SCC   49  it   was   observed   that   for  proving a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all  the   conspirators   know   each   and   every   detail   of   the  conspiracy. So long as they are co­conspirators in the main  object   of   the   conspiracy,   it   is   not   necessary   that   all  conspirators   should   participate   from  the   inception   of   the  conspiracy to its end.
Gujarat High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Mohd. Afzal Kumhar & Another vs State on 13 April, 2009

In Mohd. Amin's case(supra) also the accused persons had not disputed their signatures on their confessional statements and taking that fact into consideration as also the fact that the allegations made by them regarding coercion, torture etc. after more than one year of recording of confessions it was held that the plea of torture etc. was afterthought and products of ingenuity of their advocates and that statements made Crl. A. Nos. 811/2007, 89/2008 and 90/2008 66 by them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also the result of afterthoughts. In the present case, it is also significant to note that none of the accused had taken a plea during investigation stage that after their arrest they were tortured or in any other way compelled to sign the documents purporting to be their confessional statements. And if at all there had been any coercion from the police they could have easily informed the ACMM that they had not made the confessional statements which had been placed before him by the police for getting the same confirmed from them. They did not do that. It is also worth noticing that the prosecution case was that only two of the accused had volunteered to make confessional statements and the other accused had not shown any such willingness. Now, if the confessional statements of the accused were to be fabricated the police could have prepared similar statements of other five accused also. That was not done. The contradictory stands taken by the accused also lend assurance to the prosecution case that the two accused had made confessional statements before PW-1 and that too voluntarily.
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Anuj vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 December, 2023

4. Considered the argument of learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. From the fact, it appears that the applicant has filed present application with the same prayer, which has been prayed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.24399 of 2019. The earlier application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. No.25399 of 2019 is pending. Interim order was granted. Now trial court has proceeded against the applicant in view of Supreme Court judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.Ltd. and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, applicant has filed present application. Second application for the same relief cannot be entertained. Applicant can raise his grievance in pending Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D Verma - Full Document

Addl Cit Rg 5(1), Mumbai vs M/S.Mondelez India Foods Private ... on 15 May, 2019

2. The revenue's grievance is that ITAT has exceeded is jurisdiction in granting stay beyond 365 days in this case which is not permissible in view of 3rd proviso to section 254(2)(A). In this regard reliance has been placed upon Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. Further reliance has been placed upon Hon'ble Apex court decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.Ltd. Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next