Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Vasu @ Bhaskaran vs State- Represented By The Public on 10 July, 2020 cites

R.Ravi vs S.I. Of Police on 4 November, 2008

In support of the contention he has placed reliance on the decisions reported in Prakashan and another v. State of Kerala [2016 KHC 96], Gireesh @ Manoj v. State of Kerala [2019 KHC 655], Vikraman v. State of Kerala [2018 KHC 3177] and also Ravi v. State - S.I. of Police, Meppadi [2018 (5) KHC 352]. Secondly he argued that there is inordinate delay in investigating the matter and filing the charge sheet. Even though the alleged occurrence was on 29.12.1999, investigation was done only in 2002, that reason for the delay is not explained.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - R Basant - Full Document

H.Krishnan vs State - Represented By The Public on 19 February, 2004

In Krishnan's case, it was held that if the sample seal is not appearing in the copy of the forwarding note, it has to be presumed, unless otherwise proved, that such a seal was not Crl. Appeal No. 2505 of 2007 -9- affixed on the original forwarding note as well. It is a rebuttable presumption which could have been rebutted by the prosecution by bringing up the original forwarding note from the chemical examination laboratory and proving the same. That has not been done.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 192 - Full Document

Kotta Prakashan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 1997

In support of the contention he has placed reliance on the decisions reported in Prakashan and another v. State of Kerala [2016 KHC 96], Gireesh @ Manoj v. State of Kerala [2019 KHC 655], Vikraman v. State of Kerala [2018 KHC 3177] and also Ravi v. State - S.I. of Police, Meppadi [2018 (5) KHC 352]. Secondly he argued that there is inordinate delay in investigating the matter and filing the charge sheet. Even though the alleged occurrence was on 29.12.1999, investigation was done only in 2002, that reason for the delay is not explained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

C. Balachandran & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 17 December, 2008

10. This position has been reiterated by this Court in a recent decision reported in Balachandran v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 697]. This Court has held that there is a purpose in affixing the seal in the forwarding note; if the specimen seal is not affixed in the Crl. Appeal No. 2505 of 2007 -10- forwarding note, prosecution cannot succeed because the link starting from the seizure till it reaches the hands of the analyst cannot be established.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 116 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1