Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.27 seconds)Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 386 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jagadish Prasad Gupta Detenu Central ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 28 October, 1974
In Jagadish v. State of M.P. this
Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor
character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not
be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole
test of truth in the depositions.
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Kalki & Anr on 15 April, 1981
This Court again in State of Rajasthan v.
Kalki held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal
discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such
discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of
memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and
horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are
those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person."
State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
However, in State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC
172, it has been held by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to
be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice
to an accused.