Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Section 52 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Manjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2019
Court of Delhi in Manjit Singh Vs State (2014) 214 DLT 646.
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
In it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration 1989 Cri.L.J. 127 that
the mentioning of FIR in seizure memo prepared prior to the
registration of FIR leads to the inference that either the FIR was
recorded before the alleged recovery or that the FIR number was
inserted in the documents later on subsequent to its registration.
In both the situations, a serious dent is created in the veracity of
prosecution case. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
hereinbelow:
"Most importantly in the present case, the case property has
been seized vide seizure memo Ex PW 1/B and thereafter FIR
was registered.
Mohd. Hashim Masood vs State on 30 September, 1999
33. Similarly, in Mohd. Hashim Vs. State 1999 51 DRJ
532, it was held that:
"The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the
aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same
handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were
prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any
explanation as to under what circumstances number of the FIR
(Ex.PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid
documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This
gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex.PW4/B)
was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband
or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents
after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects
upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good
deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner
alleged by the prosecution."
Section 60 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984
17. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. The failure to do so would necessarily result in acquittal of accused. It has been held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1997) 3 RCR (Cri) 421: "5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."