Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 489B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
C. Ronald & Anr vs State, U.T. Of Andaman & Nicobar Islands on 10 August, 2011
2003 5 SCC 291, C. Ronald & Anr. Vs. Union Territory of
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (2012) 1 SCC (Crl.) 596.
Sunil Clifford Daniel vs State Of Punjab on 14 September, 2012
In Sunil Clifford Daniel vs.
State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205, Apex Court referred to State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi v. Sunil and Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein Court held as under:-
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
In Sunil Clifford Daniel vs.
State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205, Apex Court referred to State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi v. Sunil and Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein Court held as under:-
Sumit Tomar vs State Of Punjab on 19 October, 2012
7. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the appellants is that the
decoy customer - Vinod Kumar has not been examined and, therefore, the entire
prosecution story has to be rejected. In the absence of independent witness, the
conviction based on official witnesses cannot be sustained. Substantially similar plea was
taken in Sumit Tomar vs. The State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC 395 which was a case
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and one Kaur Singh was
joined by the prosecution, but was not examined. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the prosecution should have examined him but it was the stand of prosecution
that in spite of necessary steps taken by issuing summons, he did not appear and for that
reason prosecution case cannot be thrown out. If the statements of police officials are
reliable and no animosity is established against them by the accused then the conviction
based on their statements cannot be faulted with.