Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.39 seconds)

State vs . Rakesh on 17 April, 2007

13.In an authority 2004 CRI. L. J. 1380 "Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan" the Supreme Court summed up the requirement of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act thus: (1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.(2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act. (4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Pareek vs State & Ors on 7 March, 2018

upon the judgment rendered in the case D.L.Dabgar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), this court in the said case was considering the scope of Rule 27, 27A, 28 & 29 of the Rajasthan Industries Service Rules, 1960. The Court has recorded that as per Rule 27A and proviso thereto it is provided that a person shall not be debarred from confirmation if no reason to the contrary about the satisfactory performance of his work are communicated to him within the probation period. In the said judgment, the Court has recorded the fact in that case that Appointing Authority did not pass any order of extension of period of probation against the petitioner in that case and the Court came to the conclusion that if there is no communication of extension of period of probation, it has to be presumed that person stands automatically confirmed. The relevant para of the judgment are quoted as hereunder:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A K Gaur - Full Document
1