Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Section 3 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it appears that no sincere
efforts, have been made to join the public persons in the investigation.
The witnesses examined by the prosecution are police witness. Not even a
FIR No. 386/2010 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Annu and ors. Page No. 20/27
single public witness was examined by the prosecution nor joined in the
investigation and no plausible reason could be put forward by the
prosecution witnesses that for what reason they were unable to gather
support from public or independent witnesses to establish the guilt of the
accused. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration,
1989 Cri.L.J. 127.
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be
shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join
independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such
sincereefforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were
open and one or two shop keepers could have been persuaded to join the
raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In
case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the
FIR No. 386/2010 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Annu and ors. Page No. 21/27
police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers
because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to
perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen,
which is an offence under the IPC."
Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964
Perusal of the above rule clearly suggests that the police officials are
mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from
the police station. In the instant case, this provision has not been
complied by the concerned police witnesses. The relevant entries
regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials have not been
FIR No. 386/2010 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Annu and ors. Page No. 23/27
proved on record. It has been held in Rattan Lal V. State 1987 (2) Crimes
29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that;
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
Giri Raj Singh Meena vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 January, 2014
Therefore, in view of the above, this creates further doubts in the in
the mind of the Court as to whether the case property i.e. currency notes
allegedly recovered from the accused Annu has not been tampered with.
Perusal of record shows that prosecution witnesses have deposed
that FIR was registered after preparation of seizure memo, accordingly,
FIR number could not have surfaced on that seizure memo, however, the
seizure memo bears the FIR number. This gives rise to two inferences
that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case
property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its
registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity
of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the
recovery of the case property in the manner alleged. That being so,
benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the accused.
Reference be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of Giri Raj v. State, 83 (2000) DLT 201.