Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor on 19 January, 1939
The Privy Council in Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 P. C. 47, made the following observations at page 52:
Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor on 1 May, 1934
On the matter of construction Sections 164 and 364 must be looked at and construed together and it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than that which is laid down with such minute particularity in the sections themselves. Upon the construction adopted by the Crown, the only effect of Section 164 is to allow evidence to be put in a form in which it can prove itself under Sections 74 and 80, Evidence Act Their Lordships are satisfied that the scope and extent of the section is far other than this, and that it is a section conferring powers on Magistrates and delimiting them. It is also to be observed that, if the construction contended for by the Crown be correct, all the precautions and safeguards laid down by Sections 164 and 364 would be of such trifling value as to be almost idle.
The Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Lalit Mohan Singha Roy on 25 April, 1921
See AIR 1936 P. C. 253 (2) and Legal Remembrancer, Bengal v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy, AIR 1922 Cal 342, followed in Abdul Rahim v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Cal 926 and Kara Mansukh v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Nag 254. The statement made by the Appellant No. 1 therefore to Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate not having been recorded by him in accordance with the provision of Section 164 was inadmissible in evidence and could not be proved orally by him."
Abdul Rahim And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 8 January, 1925
See AIR 1936 P. C. 253 (2) and Legal Remembrancer, Bengal v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy, AIR 1922 Cal 342, followed in Abdul Rahim v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Cal 926 and Kara Mansukh v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Nag 254. The statement made by the Appellant No. 1 therefore to Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate not having been recorded by him in accordance with the provision of Section 164 was inadmissible in evidence and could not be proved orally by him."
State vs Ram Autar Chaudhry And Ors. on 1 October, 1954
State v. Ram Autar, AIR 1955 All 138, Mahfuz All v. State, AIR 1953 All 110, Abdul Rahim v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lah 105, Emperor v. Kommoju Brahman, AIR 1940 Pat 163, In re Thothan, AIR 1956 Mad 425, and Babbu v. State, AIR 1954 All 633.
Bachchan Lal vs The State on 19 October, 1956
26. This decision was again followed by another Divisional Bench of our High Court in Bachchan Lal v. The State, AIR 1957 All 184. On this ground also the statement of the appellant is not admissible in evidence.
Emperor vs Musammat Jagia on 9 February, 1938
The immediate presence of a policeman or police officer is not necessary to prove that the accused was in the custody of the police. Even temporary absence of a policeman or a police officer would not terminate his custody and the accused shall be deemed to he in the custody of the police even in such circumstances. Two cases in point are 'Emperor v. Mt. Jagia' AIR 1938 Pat 308 and Ram Bharose Narbada Prasad v. Emperor AIR 1944 Nag 105.