Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Karnail Singh And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 9 January, 1953
In Karnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 Criminal Law
Journal, 1218 (DB), it was held that where the independent witness, was
won over by the accused, and only the officials were examined, as
witnesses for the prosecution, who were considered to be not interested
persons, their evidence cannot be doubted, on the ground of their official
status.
State Of Orissa vs Kanduri Sahoo on 4 December, 2003
In State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo 2004(1) RCR (Criminal)
196 (S.C.), it was held that mere delay in sending the sample to the
Laboratory is not fatal, where there is evidence that the seized articles
remained in safe custody.
Rajinder Kumar @ Narinder Kumar @ Nindi vs State Of Punjab --Respondent on 4 July, 2008
In Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of
Punjab 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 343, which was a case, relating to the
recovery of 4 Kgs. of opium, the samples were sent to the office of the
Chemical Examiner, after 23 days. All the samples were intact. In these
circumstances, it was held that, in the face of the other cogent,
convincing, reliable, and trustworthy evidence, produced by the
prosecution, to prove the completion of link evidence, it could not be
held that the possibility of tampering with the samples, could not be ruled
out. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully
applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, in the instant case,
unexplained delay of 17 days, in sending the samples, to the office of the
Chemical Examiner, did not at all matter much. In this view of the
matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without
merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Section 293 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964
In Masalti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965
(S.C.) 202, it was held that it is, undoubtedly, the duty of the prosecution
to lay before the Court, all material witnesses, available to it, whose
evidence is necessary for unfolding its case, but it would be unsound to
lay down it, as a general rule, that every witness, must be examined, even
though his evidence, may not be very material, or even if, it is known that
he has been won over or terrorized.
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Roop Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 28 August, 1973
In Roop Singh Vs. State of Punjab
1996 (1) RCR 146, a Division Bench of this Court, held that no adverse
inference can be drawn, when the only independent witness, was given up
Crl. Appeal No.732-SB of 2001 5
by the prosecution, as won over by the accused. It was further held, in
the said authority, that the panch witnesses, being human beings, are
quite exposed and vulnerable to human feelings of yielding, browbeating,
threats and inducements, and giving up of the public witnesses, as won
over, is fully justified, in the present day situation, prevailing in the
society.
1