Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.62 seconds)
Rekha vs The State on 23 August, 2022 cites

Sanjay Kumar Purohit & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 15 January, 2009

DECISION 7 As far as the allegations of entrustment are concerned, it was rightly observed by the Ld Trial Court that there was no averment on the part of the complainant that she had entrusted any property to the respondents herein. Further, as per the report of the CAW Cell, whatever property was in the possession of the respondents, willingness qua return of the same was expressed by the respondents but it was the complainant who refused to receive the same. The only averment that was made was that, all the jewelery articles were taken by sister­in­law and mother­in­law while taking bath. In this averment too, the essential element of entrustment is missing. 8 It would also be useful to peruse the following extracts of Narbada Vs. State & Ors, 2008 Cri.l.J 798, it was held as thus.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 1827 - P C Tatia - Full Document

State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993

4. State of West Bengal Vs Orilal Jaiswal case no 734 of 1991 5 Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent vociferously contended that there is no whisper or any avernment qua entrustement of any jewellary or articles. It was submitted that even as per record, the respondents were willing Rekha Vs. State CA No 60 of 2021 3/8 to return the articles, however, it was the complainant/appellant herself, who refused to receive the same. It was submitted that even before the CAW Cell, there is no avernment qua entrustement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 456 - G N Ray - Full Document
1