Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing State vs Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah And Ors. on 31 December, 1963

State vs . Mohd. Abdula Sheikh on 12 March, 2013

Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:­ ' It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that FIR No. 650/02 Page 5 of 6 State vs. Mohd. Abdula Sheikh the explanation for non­joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Mohd. Sultan Sheikh. on 22 July, 1976

In a case State v. Mohd. Sultan Sheikh for an offence under Section 304-A.R.P.C. the prosecution cited five witnesses including two eye witnesses in its calendar of witnesses. During the examination of one of the eye witnesses, by name Haji Ghulam Ahmad Najar, it transpired that person by name of Mushtaq Ahmad was also present at the time of the occurrence and had witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution on the very first day of hearing, made an application before the trial court praying that it may be allowed to adduce additional evidence in the case. That application was not disposed of on that day but was posted for orders on the closing of the prosecution case. The learned trial court, by its order dated 5-8-1975, rejected the said application made by the prosecution. Aggrieved against the order of the learned trial Judge rejecting the prayer of the prosecution to adduce additional evidence in the case, the State went up in revision to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, who vide his order dated 21-2-1976, has recommended to this Court that the prosecution be allowed to adduce additional evidence and the order of the Magistrate rejecting the prayer be quashed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A S Anand - Full Document

Munshi Ram Thappa vs Rattan Singh And Anr. on 13 August, 1999

In support of his contention that the order is abuse of the process it relied on the decision of this Court in State v. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah 1964 Kash LJ 130 : 1964 (2) Cri LJ 88). However, facts of the case being entirely different, the ratio is not applicable as shall be presently noticed after analysing the scope of Section 540 with reference to various decisions of the different High Courts. Ali, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed as under :-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1