Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.50 seconds)
State Through Senior Security ... vs Ram Lal And Another on 17 January, 2012 cites

Om Prakash & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 15 July, 1998

As held in Om Prakash's case and Vishwanath Tukaram' case (supra), at the first instance it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the property recovered was a Railway property. Unless the ingredients of Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines 'railway property', are proved, no confession under Section 3 of the Act can be relied upon. Even otherwise, this Court is conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not interfere with the view formulated by the trial Court, if the same is possible on the facts and under the circumstances of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 725 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath Tukuram Umale & Ors on 2 August, 1979

As held in Om Prakash's case and Vishwanath Tukaram' case (supra), at the first instance it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the property recovered was a Railway property. Unless the ingredients of Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines 'railway property', are proved, no confession under Section 3 of the Act can be relied upon. Even otherwise, this Court is conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not interfere with the view formulated by the trial Court, if the same is possible on the facts and under the circumstances of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 150 - P N Shinghal - Full Document
1