Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Section 33 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Sadhu Singh(D) By Lrs. Etc. Etc. vs The State Of Punjab on 31 March, 2022
14. In the present case, as per the police witnesses, public persons
were requested to join the investigation by the IO but none of them
agreed. However, no written notice was served upon them to join
the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec. 187
IPC. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join
independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a
serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed
on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop
Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs State Of Goa on 3 November, 2004
This was also held in Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of
Goa (2005) 9 SCC 773.
Mohd. Kasim Mohd Hasim Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 June, 2019
In
Mohd. Hasim Vs. State, 1999 VI AD (DELHI) 569, it has been
held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"Documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR
Number, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in
time or that documents were prepared after the recording the
FIR, and was held that in both case, prosecution case would
FIR No. 402/2010 State vs. BIMLA DEVI
PS Pandav Nagar
Date of Decision : Page 9 of 11
collapse."
Sarwan Singh vs The State Of Punjab(With Connected ... on 10 April, 1957
18. It would also be worthwhile to refer to the judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1957
SC 637 regarding the nature of burden of proof on the prosecution
to prove its case. The ratio of this judgment is applied with the
same vigour even after more than 50 years of its passing. It was
observed in this case :
"There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution
story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecu
tion story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be
true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole
of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, re
liable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be
convicted."
Sh. Jagdish Prasad vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 8 September, 2011
19. Again in Jagdish Prasad vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
2011 (9) LRC 206 (Del), the Hon'ble High of Delhi had observed
that :
"It is well settled that in a criminal case, in order to bring
home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to
establish the guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. If, on
consideration of the prosecution evidence, a reasonable doubt
remains in respect of culpability of the accused, he is entitled to
benefit of doubt."