Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.95 seconds)
State vs Karan Tendi @ Sunny on 17 December, 2018 cites

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chadha vs Adm (Hq) Revenue Department, Govt. Of ... on 17 August, 2009

24. Furthermore, the testimony of PWs, record and the perusal of rukka shows that the form M-29 Ex. PW-2/A, seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A Ex. PW-1/B were prepared prior to the dispatch of the Rukka and registration of the FIR. However, perusal of the said document clearly shows that the FIR number and other particulars of the present case are mentioned on the said document. No explanation has come from the prosecution to justify as to how the FIR number surfaced on those document which were prepared prior to the registration of the case thereby substantiating the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted at the police station and nothing was recovered from the spot from the possession of the accused. This fact casts a doubt upon the testimony of PWs and entire prosecution version because if the said documents were prepared prior to the registration of the present case, then how the FIR number as well as other particulars of the present case surfaced on the said documents. At this stage, reference can also be made of a case titled as Pawan Kumar Vs Delhi Admn. 1987 CC Cases 585 Delhi wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that the mention of FIR number on recovery memo etc which were prepared prior to lodging the FIR creates doubt and benefit should go to the accused.
Central Information Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 898 - Full Document
1   2 Next