Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.29 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 November, 2000
27.It is true, the amount has been seized from the right side drawer of the appellant. But explanation offered in Question No.16 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has clearly mentioned that amount has been kept in the drawer, without the knowledge of the appellant. In such circumstances, the decision relied upon by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) reported in 2001 Cri.L.J.175 (Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000
(iii) 2001 Crl.L.J. 515 (M.Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh), in para-18 and 19, it reads as follows:
M.Subramani vs State Represented By on 16 March, 2011
(i) (2011) 4 MLJ (crl) 34 (M.Subramani v. State represented by Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai), in which, it is held as follows:
M. Ramakrishnan vs State Of Madras on 28 August, 1979
(ii) (2007) 1 MLJ (crl) 430 (Ramakrishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, D & VAC, Chennai) in para-9, it is held as follows:
Ganapathi Sanya Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2007
(iii) 2007 Crl (L.J.) 4689 (Ganapathi Sanya Naik v. State of Karnataka), in para-8, it is held as follows:
Narayana Gopal Krishna Hegde& Others vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 1996
20.Now this Court has to consider whether the evidence of P.W.3 is reliable? It is true, after examination, P.W.3 was treated as hostile. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), reported in 2011 Cri.L.J.969 (Narayana v. State of Karnataka), in which, it was stated that "Merely because independent witnesses to trap had turned hostile, accused cannot be acquitted. " But the above citation is not applicable. This Court has already came to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.2 is not trustworthy and not reliable.