Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
State vs . Mahender on 13 February, 2015 cites

Rabindranath Prusty vs State Of Orissa on 24 November, 1984

i. Firstly, no DD entry has been proved on record by prosecution in order to show that PW2, PW7 and PW8 were indeed on patrolling duty on the day of alleged recovery of smack from accused. It is an important missing link in the version of prosecution. ii. Further PW7 SI Sudesh Ranga in his examination-in-chief has not FIR No. 466/2006, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/11 stated that he offered his personal search to accused before taking his search. Principles of natural justice demanded that accused should have been offered search by recovery witness who allegedly recovered case property from accused and should have reduced this fact into writing which has not been done in present case and which fact diminishes credibility of prosecution version. Reliance being placed on a judgment of Orissa High Court reported as "Rabindernath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa. In this situation, it can be said that search of the accused by above said police officials was in complete violation of the above said case law and the same can be said to be illegal & motivated. Further more though it is claimed by PW7 that he had given due notice under section 50 NDPS Act to the accused, which was allegedly refused by the accused, however, refusal of the accused was not recorded in writing. This fact raises a doubt if actually such a notice was served on the accused.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1622 - Full Document
1