Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.20 seconds)Section 38 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
".........18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in
such cases it should be shown by the police that
sincere efforts have been made to join independent
witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no
such sincere efforts have been made, particularly
when we find that shops were open and one or two
shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the
raiding party to witness the recovery being made
from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers
had declined to join the raiding party, the police
could have later on taken legal action against such
shopkeepers because they could not have escaped
the rigours of law while declining to perform their
legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a
citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
19. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of
Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court held as under:
Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988
22. This court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of
independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or
doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and
another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However,
evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the
varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As
observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the
present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence
of an independent witness would have rendered the much-needed
corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the
prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
Safiullah vs State (Delhi Administration) on 9 November, 1992
25. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State,
(1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed: