Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Section 27 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Mohmed Inayatullah vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 1975
20. The memorandum (Ex.P/6) of the appellant/accused
recorded under Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adiniyam, 2023 is
relevant as it relates to the discovery of fact, that is, articles seized vide
seizure memos (Ex.P/7). The Supreme Court in the case of Mohmed
Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828, while
considering a noted judgment of Privy Council in case of Palukuri
Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 restated the legal proposition
with regard to scope and object of the provisions of Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act (analogous to Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adiniyam, 2023) and it has been categorically held as under:-
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
20. The memorandum (Ex.P/6) of the appellant/accused
recorded under Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adiniyam, 2023 is
relevant as it relates to the discovery of fact, that is, articles seized vide
seizure memos (Ex.P/7). The Supreme Court in the case of Mohmed
Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828, while
considering a noted judgment of Privy Council in case of Palukuri
Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 restated the legal proposition
with regard to scope and object of the provisions of Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act (analogous to Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adiniyam, 2023) and it has been categorically held as under:-
Udai Bhan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 January, 1962
includes not only the physical object produced, but also the
14
Cr. A. No.3732/2025 & CRRFC-2/2025
place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the
accused as to this (see Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor [AIR
1947 PC 67 : 74 IA 65 : 48 Cri LJ 533] ; Udai Bhan v. State
of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1962 SC 1116 : 1962 Supp (2) SCR
830 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251] )."