Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)State By Inspector Of Police(Tamil ... vs Rajangam on 30 April, 2009
Counsel for the appellants has further argued that once SI
Balbir Singh himself was the informant/complainant, it was incumbent on
the superior officer to have marked the inquiry to another Officer. For this
proposition, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai,
Tamil Nadu vs Rajangam, 2010(15) SC 369, wherein it was held as
follows:-
Balasundaran vs State on 13 July, 1999
In another case in Balasundaran v. State
1999 (113) ELT 785 (Mad), in para 16, the Madras High
Court took the same view. The relevant portion reads as
under:
State Of M.P. vs Suresh Kaushal And Anr. [Alongwith ... on 1 May, 2001
In Abdul Ayub Khan's case (supra), it was held as follows :-
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
State Of Rajasthan vs Parmanand And Anr on 28 February, 2014
In this connection, he has relied upon a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another,
2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 40, wherein it was held as follows :-
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1