Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors on 16 August, 2011

"....... this Court has explained the importance of ensuring that the FSL form is duly sent with the sample for testing. .....It is normal procedure that when the incriminating articles are seized and are required to be sent to the Central forensic Science laboratory, those articles are immediately sealed and deposited at the Malkhana at the police station till they are taken out and sent to the Laboratory. In the instant case, this was not done. Contemporaneously with seizure and sealing of such articles, impression of seal used on the seal is put on a form, commonly called, the CFSL form. This is so done because at the time of analysis of sealed packets in the laboratory, the analyst concerned is able to tally seal impressions on sealed packets with those appearing on the CFSL form in order to rule out any possibility of tampering of seals on sealed packets after seizure FIR No. 70/07 Page No. 7 of 10 State vs. Sunil anywhere or in transit till receipt in laboratory. The importance of the CFSL form thus cannot be overemphasized because this document provides a valuable safeguard to an accused to ensure that no tampering has been done during intervening period. The CFSL form is a document or forwarding note accompanying a sample sent by the police to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Such a form contains the nature of the crime, list of samples being sent for examination, nature of examination required and specimen of the seal/seals affixed on the exhibit besides particulars of the case/ police station." (emphasis supplied) In Radha Kishan, after referring to the Delhi High Court Rules, Part III Chapter 18 B, regarding proper proof of custody of articles, it was held by this Court that the evidence of preparation and dispatch of the FSL form was critical for ensuring that the sealed sample was kept intact in the police malkhana. An adverse inference would be drawn against the prosecution in the event the FSL form was not proved to have been prepared and dispatched.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 364 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Abdul Hamid vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 29 May, 2001

I am supported in this view by the decisions of this court in Safiullah Vs. State (Delhi Admn), 1993 JCC 33, Mool Chand Vs. State, 1993 JCC 234; Amarjit Singh and another Vs. State (Delhi Admn), 1995 JCC 91; Abdul Ghaffer Vs. The State (Delhi Admn),1996 JCC 497 and Berthe Djakarid- ja Vs. The state, 1998(1) JCC (Delhi) 62. The view taken by the trial court that it was for the appellant to have brought material on record to show that there was tem- pering with the seals of the sample parcel being erro- neous deserves to be discarded. Thus the orders convic- tion and sentence passed by the Additional Session Judge require to be set aside."
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - M A Khan - Full Document

Ritesh Chakarvarti vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 September, 2006

The principle of law, laid down in Ritesh Chakarvarti's case (supra) is fully applicable to the instant case. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful. Failure on the part of prosecution to make sincere efforts to join independent public witnesses in the proceedings when they were available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 351 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next