Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)

State Of Haryana Through Its Collector ... vs Arun Chaudhary And Another on 23 January, 2012

During his cross­examination, PW­04 deposed that he did not make any departure entry at the time of leaving the police station. He has no knowledge, if IO had made any departure entry or not. They had gone to the spot FIR No. 832/15 State Vs. Tarun Chaudhary 8 / 20 on a motorcycle and reached there within 5­7 minutes after receipt of the call. Few public persons were present at the spot at that time. He admitted that purse was handed over to them by the complainant. The purse was containing one currency note of Rs. 500/­ and three currency notes of Rs. 10/­ each. He does not remember, if the purse contained anything else or not. As far as he remembers, the complainant was having a bus ticket, but he has no knowledge, if IO had collected the same or not. Public persons refused to join investigation. Bus had already left the spot when they reached there.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - R Bindal - Full Document

Balraj Singh Ghuman vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2016

It has been held by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1982 Cri. L.J. 1374 that even if case property is not proved, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. Failure on the part of IO to seal the case property and prepare site plan at the instance of the complainant are minor irregularities which do not have any bearing on the prosecution case which has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused deserves to be convicted.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 192 - Full Document
1   2 Next