Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)
State vs . 1 Roof Ahmad S/O Sayeed Ahmad, on 21 October, 2010 cites

Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987

17 The recovery in question is admittedly a huge one but it rather makes the task of police more onerous and strenuous. Statutory desirability in the matter of search and seizure is that there should be support from unbiased and neutral corner. The search before an independent witness FIR No. 51/06 PS: Narcotics Branch page 12 of 31 imparts much more authenticity and credit worthiness to the search and seizure proceedings. Such safeguard is intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and highhanded action against police officers. This is to lend credibility to the procedure relating to search and seizure. indubitably, if the evidence of the official witnesses is found to be credible and coherent, same can alone prove to be foundation for conviction and normally, prosecution case cannot be thrown away straightaway merely because chief plank of evidence is that of official witnesses. However, it puts the court on guard and the testimony of such official witnesses is, in such a situation, liable to be scrutinized with extra caution and simultaneously, prosecution has to offer satisfactory explanation for not associating independent witnesses more so when they are available right at the elbow. In such a situation, courts are fully justified in finding out the reasons as to why no such person came forward and whether the investigating agency did its best to persuade independent persons. Reference be made to judgment cited as Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 CRLJ 127 DELHI.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3061 - Full Document
1   2 Next