Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Ravi Kant Sharma vs State on 12 October, 2011

Through vs State on 18 July, 2022

26.11 Further, Ld. Addl. PP submitted a tabular compilation bringing out the distinguishable facts in the so called overhyped case by the defence viz., Ravi Kant Sharma v. State (supra) vis­à­vis the instant matter, pointing out that the cited case was one where the location of the accused case was sought to be established through his CDR, which was titled 'Temporary'. In other words, neither the full and final authenticated CDR was filed nor certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was given and it was urged that the defence was trying to compare chalk with cheese. It was pointed out that SLP Crl. Appeal Nos. 89/2020; 90/2020; 91/2020; 92/2020 & 94/2020 Page 147 of 180 against the said decision is still pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the ratio propounded in that case is binding as between the parties and not binding proposition of law.
Delhi District Court Cites 131 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs State on 23 May, 2014

65. The trial Court has also not appreciated the evidence regarding the truecaller details although in para 20 (iii) of the impugned judgment there is a lengthy discussion on how the truecaller system works. The material produced by the defence has been disregarded only because no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was produced. Learned APP has also placed reliance on the decision in Ravi Kant Sharma v. State 183 (2011) DLT 248 and Rakesh Kumar v. State 163 (2009) DLT 658 in this regard.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1