Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.34 seconds)
State vs . 1. Balu Singh, on 19 April, 2016 cites

State Of Haryana vs Mai Ram on 31 July, 2008

In State of Haryana v. Mai Ram, (2008) 8 SCC 292, it was observed that the ultimate question to be asked is, whether the evidence of the official witness suffers from any infirmity. The case of the prosecution can not be held to be vulnerable for non­examination of person who were not official witnesses. In such cases, if the statements of official witnesses corroborate the proceedings conducted, the case of the prosecution can not be disbelieved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 100 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Matloob vs State (Delhi Administration) on 23 April, 1997

7. The counsel for the accused has next contended that there was delay of five days in sending the sample parcels to the laboratory which is against the NCB guidelines and thus the same should be read against the prosecution. He has placed reliance upon Matloob v. State (Delhi Administration), 67 (1997) DLT 372, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the sample needs to be sent to the FSL without delay and if the sample was dispatched with delay and no explanation was given, tampering with the sample can be inferred. He has also argued that neither the FSL form has been proved on record nor there is any evidence to show that it was sent to the FSL alongwith the samples.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 161 - Full Document
1