Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)

Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar vs State Of Maharashtra(And Connected ... on 18 March, 1963

The evidentiary value of the said act is limited by two circumstances namely the acts shall in reference to the common intention and in respect of the period after such intention was entertained by anyone of them. The expression in reference to your common intention is very comprehensive and appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words in furtherance of. In English law with the result, anything said, done or written by co conspirators the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or FIR NO.: 119 OF 2007 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 11 of 14 after he left it. Another important limitation implicit in the language is indication by the expressed scope of its relevancy. Anything so said, done or written is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiry as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it." as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs State of Maharashtra (And Connected Appeals) dated 18.03.1963.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 69 - Full Document
1