Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Section 38 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar Etc. Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 May, 1995
13. In present case prosecution was duty bound to prove the possession of
the illicit liquor with accused. Same is sought to be proved by the recovery
FIR No. 63/14
State Vs. Vinod Page 6 of 11
7
memo and testimony of the witnesses. Incident happened at 10:35 am and it
is admitted fact that public persons were available at the spot which is evident
from the testimony of PW 3, who deposed that public persons were present at
the spot at the relevant time and it is also a matter of record that no public
witness was joined during the investigation. It is further noteworthy that
according to the testimony of PW3, one public person only informed PW 3
about the present accused carrying illicit liquor in some plastic bags and again
this unknown public person was also never made a witness in the presnet
case. Not only this neither was his name disclosed nor any specifications
pertaining to him were ever brought to light and this per se raises scanner
over the testimony of PW 3. It was held in Pradeep Narayana V. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930, that failure of police to join witness from
locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit
of which has to go to the accused.
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996
Similarly it was held in the case of Kuldeep
Singh V. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR 103 and Passi @ Prakash V. State
of Haryana 2001(1) RCR 435, that whenever any recovery in connection with
the place of the commission of offence is made, public persons must be made
witness.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1