Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 92 (2.51 seconds)
Documents citing E.K. Chandrasenan vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 1995

State vs Basanta Etc. on 26 May, 2010

23 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused wherein they had asked that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or as agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons has been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary FIR no. 114/09 Page 14of 17 15 and complimentary of the acts of each other .
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Basanta Etc. on 26 May, 2010

23 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala , referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 25 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after FIR no. 72/09 Page 13 of 14 procuring the same from accused Randeep @ Nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on which his dhaba was situated.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Raman Singh Etc. on 26 May, 2010

23 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala ,referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 25 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their FIR no. 69/09 Page11 /13 12 premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after procuring the same from accused Randeep @ nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on which his dhaba was situated.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Basanta Etc. on 26 May, 2010

23 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in FIR no. 70/09 Page 13 of 17 prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala , referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 25 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after procuring the same from accused Randeep @ Nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on which his dhaba was situated.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Seema & Ors. on 26 May, 2010

21 After going through material on record as collected during investigation and also the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation, it is found that all the accused persons have played their independent role in manufacturing and supply of spurious liquor which was ultimately sold to the deceased by accused Basanta as a result he has died . 22 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused FIR no. 73/09 Page 12 of 17 wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 23 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala , referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 24 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after procuring the same from accused Randeep @ Nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on which his dhaba was situated.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Raman Singh on 26 May, 2010

24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala ,referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 25 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after procuring the same from accused Randeep @ nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on which his dhaba was situated.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Basanta Etc. on 26 May, 2010

23 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala ,referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other .
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Basanta Etc. on 26 May, 2010

23 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala , referred SUPRA , it is not always FIR no. 74/09 Page 13 of 16 possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 25 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after procuring the same from accused Randeep @ Nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on which his dhaba was situated.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Basanta Etc. on 26 May, 2010

23 The contention is raised by Ld. Defence counsel for each accused wherein they had stated that alleged role of the accused persons is different and they cannot be charged for the offence u/s 120 B IPC because there is no direct evidence on record to show that each accused was acting in prosecution of criminal conspiracy or has agreed to the alleged conspiracy of manufacturing , supply and sale of spurious liquor. 24 Admittedly as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. K Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala ,referred SUPRA , it is not always possible to establish criminal conspiracy by direct evidence and factum of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence . The circumstantial evidence in the prosecution case shows that all the accused persons had been acting in consonance with each other and their role is supplementary and complimentary to the acts of each other . 25 The material on record shows that accused Raman and Chaman alongwith some other persons i.e Pawan @ Pujari not yet arrested and Subhash were engaged in the manufacturing of spurious liquor at their premises in Gurgaon. The recovered spirit containing methyl alcohol was being supplied to them by accused Subhash and Suraj @ Bhim after procuring the same from accused Randeep @ nanhe who used to receive the said rectified spirit from the tanker /truck passing through the road on FIR no. 80/09 Page14 /17 which his dhaba was situated.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next