Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.57 seconds)Section 67B in The Information Technology Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 67 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Uco Bank vs Mr. Lachhman Dass Popli on 24 August, 2001
18. Thus, on the basis of the Law of Evidence Act and the
guidelines, which can be taken note of from the cases
decided by the apex Court and referred to above, it can
safely be said that merely exhibiting a document will not
absolve the party, relying on the document, from proving
its execution and the contents thereof in accordance with
law especially when the document is a private document,
the scribe and the person who executed it, are the
witnesses who alone could successfully and legally prove
such a document.
Mohd. Sagir Mohd. Bashir Chauhan (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. Prison ... on 8 February, 2021
Monu Shehjada. His date of birth was mentioned as 28.9.1990
and his approximate age was mentioned as 29 years. The video
was uploaded on June 29, 2020, from Amb, Himachal Pradesh
with the IP Address specified in the Cyber Tipline Report. It was
specifically mentioned in the Cyber Tipline Report that in case of
any further information, the e-mail address or the phone
number mentioned in the report should be contacted. There is
no evidence on record that the police had contacted the person
mentioned in the phone number or the e-mail ID. This was
necessary to ensure the authenticity of the report. It was
essential for the police to examine the person to prove the
contents of the report. It was laid down by the Bombay High
Court in Sir Mohammed Yusuf v. D, 1961 SCC OnLine Bom 5: AIR
1968 Bom 112 that the truthfulness of the contents of a document
can be proved by examining the person who had written it. It
was observed at page 118:
1