Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.18 seconds)The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Rabindranath Prusty vs State Of Orissa on 24 November, 1984
5. Further from the record, it appears that after the apprehension of the
accused but before taking the formal / casual search of the accused, police
official(s) had not offered their own search to the accused before taking his search.
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Orissa
High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty vs. State of Orissa.
State Of Bihar, Etc vs Kapil Singh, Etc on 18 April, 1968
In this case
relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Kapil
Singh AIR 1969 SC 53 : (1969 Cri. L.J 279) it has been held that one of the
formalities that has to be observed in searching a person is that the searching
Officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused
before searching the person of the accused.
Giri Raj Singh Meena vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 January, 2014
In the matter of Giri Raj vs State 2000 (83) DLT 201, the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi held that where the FIR number was mentioned on the documents
prepared prior to registration of the FIR then it gives rise to two inferences either
that the FIR was recorded prior to recovery of the articles or that number of the
FIR was inserted in the documents later on. In both the cases, it seriously reflects
on the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a doubt about the alleged
recovery. In the present case also the mentioning of the FIR number on the seizure
memo affects the veracity of the version of the prosecution regarding the manner
in which the recovery was effected, the benefit whereof has to go to the accused.
Mohan Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2018
In Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
that if the informant were to be made the investigating officer, it was bound to
FIR no. 237/19 S/v. Sanjay Singh Page no. 4/5
reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. It was further observed that the
Head Constable being the complainant himself could not have proceeded with the
investigation and it was a practice, to say the least, which should not be resorted to
so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. In
the present case, also the contention of the accused is that the complainant himself
would be an interested person and should not have been made the investigating
officer of the case. In the present case, the complainant is also the investigating
officer of the case which raises a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Virendra Lodhi 20 Wpc/1089/2019 ... on 20 March, 2019
(ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (VINOD KUMAR GAUTAM)
ON 11th FEBUARY, 2020) ACMM( NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR GAUTAM
GAUTAM Date:
2020.02.11
15:30:38
+0530
FIR no. 237/19 S/v. Sanjay Singh Page no. 5/5
State Vs. Sanjay Singh
FIR No. : 237/19
CR No. 3793/19
P.S. : Sonia Vihar
11.02.2020
Present: Ld. Sub. APP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
In the case reported as
Anoop Joshi vs. State, 1992 (2) C. C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has deprecated the practice of the police officials of not making any sincere
efforts to join the public witness when they are available.