Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 251 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Major Singh on 28 April, 1966

State vs . 1. Major Singh on 1 April, 2011

15 The manner of taking sample is also not appropriate. From the possession of accused Major Singh, ten packets were recovered and each packet was containing 1 kg of post powder. Instead of taking out a little bit of quantity from each of the ten packets, the Investigating Officer chose to keep aside one packet as it is as sample and that particular sample was sent to FSL for analysis. Similar procedure was adopted with respect to the other accused. Drawing of sample in the aforesaid manner was not justified and such sample cannot be said to be a representative sample. 16 In the present case, there was no real requirement of preparing any notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. It was a case of chance recovery and more so, when the recovery was from the kattas being carried by the accused, Section 50 NDPS Act did not even get attracted. However, despite that the investigating agency had chosen to prepare such notice and to serve the same to accused persons. As per the case of prosecution, separate notices were prepared and original notice was served upon each accused and State Vs. Major Singh and Sukhvinder Singh page 9 of 15 refusal endorsement was made by each accused on respective carbon copies. However, PW3 Ct. Rajesh Kumar has something else to say as according to him, composite notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was prepared. Moreover, nobody knows as to where are these original notices? These original notices, if at all had been served upon the accused, must have been recovered from their personal search but personal search memos do not reflect so. I have seen both the personal search memos i.e. Ex.PW2/E1 and Ex.PW2/F1 and there is no whisper regarding the recovery of any such notice. There is no entry in register no. 19 which might show that any such original notice was ever brought to the malkhanna. Thus, nobody knows as to where these original notices have evaporated. 17 SHO had also arrived at the spot. According to PW2 Ct. Krishan Kumar, SHO had signed notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. When SHO was asked in this regard, he claimed that he did not remember whether he had signed such notice or not. Fact remains that the carbon copy of notice does not bear signatures of SHO at all.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 September, 2017

answering the above question the majority view was that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354, IPC. Needless to say, the "common notions of mankind" referred to have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. It was further observed in the said case that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case (supra) the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 April, 2019

majority view was that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354, IPC. Needless to say, the "common notions of mankind" referred to have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. It was further observed in the said case that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case (supra) the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 April, 2019

majority view was that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354, IPC. Needless to say, the "common notions of mankind" referred to have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. It was further observed in the said case that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case (supra) the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Varinder Kaur vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 21 September, 2017

20. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision reported State of Punjab vs. Major Singh (Supra) and Samar Singh Puri vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) (Supra) is misplaced as it is a case where the complainant herself was recording the entire event and playing not only before the SHO but also before the Court. It was only on the basis of the recording made by the complainant that both the Court below have given a concurrent finding that even prima facie the ingredients of Section 354 IPC are not satisfied.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State vs Bagga Singh on 29 August, 2025

18. Pertinent, for the purpose(s) of the present discourse to also make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Major Singh, 1966 SCC Online SC 51, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while confronted with the issue whether a female child of seven-and-a-half months could be said to SC No. 29113/2016 State v. Bagga Singh Page 25 of 73 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:33:49 +0530 be possessed of 'modesty' which could be outraged, remarked as under;
Delhi District Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next