Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)
State vs Dau Dayal on 30 November, 2011 cites

Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1979

27. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhisham Kumar Vs. State 1999 (iii) AD (Delhi) 177, has also applied the test as prescribed in the enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 113 (SC) and the view taken by the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 409 - S M Ali - Full Document

Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997

27. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhisham Kumar Vs. State 1999 (iii) AD (Delhi) 177, has also applied the test as prescribed in the enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 113 (SC) and the view taken by the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 499 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Tej Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. on 8 December, 1989

42. Both the witnesses PW­6 and PW­7 viz. the complainant and the panch witness have narrated the entire incident in conformity with each other and precisely the same version have been narrated. It is not the testimony alone which inculpates the accused of the dereliction but as to what the accused could elicit from the witnesses. The testimonies of PW­6 and PW­7 are verbatim what the prosecution would have the witnesses to testify to fasten the culpability on the accused but duty of the Court does not lie in seeking to fasten the culpability but to determine whether the accused had committed the offence or not. The said fact can be illustrated through the cross­examination of the complainant PW­6 who has testified that when he had handed over the documents, no one was present. The "lifeless testimony" cannot be said to inculpate the accused as has been held by State V/s Dau Dayal Page No. 18/24 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U. P. AIR 1990, SC 431:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

V. Venkata Subbarao vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 12 December, 2006

43. However, the visit to the office of NRDC by the complainant also does not find any record even though the entry to the office of NRDC is restricted and the entrance registered. The case of the accused is that the complainant is a person who had fore knowledge of the procedure of the corruption cases in as much as he had been complainant in another case viz. 64/97 which had been decided against the accused therein. It has been suggested that the complainant was professional in this regard and would extort money once the accused was apprehended under the said Act. That is to say the demand has to be proven as in V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 489, it has been specifically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 135 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State (Delhi Administration) vs Puran Mal on 26 March, 1985

47. As regards the testimony of panch witness is concerned, he has admitted in the cross examination that he was not aware as to for what purpose the money was demanded and as such the testimony that the money was demanded for attestation stands falsified as held in State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Suraj Mal, AIR 1979, SC 1408 "Mere recovery of tinted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to bribe."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 34 - A Varadarajan - Full Document

Vishan Singh @ Vishnu Prajapati vs State Of U.P on 31 August, 2010

23. Sanction U/s 19 of POC Act is not an idle formality, but it is a sacrosanct act as the future and career of a Government official is involved. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Prajapati Vs. State of U.P., (2000) 10 SCC­43 has stressed that the person according sanction should be a competent person and a sanction accorded by the person not competent to grant the same cannot be held to be a valid sanction. This fact has not been challenged by the accused.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1