Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014
Appeal no.1171/2012 and Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K.Basheer
reported as Manu/SC/0834/2014. It is further submitted that even the FSL
report Ex. PW10/A is not admissible evidence. Certificate Ex. PW2/E with
respect to Call Detailed Record Ex. PW2/C is assailed on the ground that
certificate is not properly worded in terms of Section 65 of Indian
Evidence Act. It is next argued that prosecution has not led any evidence
about the alleged currency notes. Proceeding dated 19.2.2008 with
respect to preparing the rukka and lodging of FIR is disputed on the
ground that no panch witness was associated. It is next argued that
panch witness PW24 is a stock witness, as he had reported at PS ACB on
30 to 40 occasions.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 215 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Achchey Lal Yadav vs State on 4 September, 2014
The testimony and the certificate
State Vs.. Surender Singh Page No.23 of 38
24
may not meet the exactness spelled in Acchey Lal Yadav's case but it
does state, though, in an omnibus manner that the requisites are
satisfied. In the cited case the witness had neither deposed about the
specifics nor had furnished any certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act.
Therefore, I reject the defence argument that Call Detailed Record
Ex.PW2/C cannot be read in evidence.
1