Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985
In Ram Singh Vs. Cl. Ram Singh (1985) suppl.SCC 611,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it must be shown
that after the recording the tape was kept in proper custody. In that
case the Dy. Commissioner had left the tape with the stenographer
and this was held to be sufficient to destroy the authenticity of the
tape.
Haryana State Lotteries, Iqbal Chand ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 1998
In this regard reliance is placed
on the observations made in a case titled as Nanak Chand Vs.
State of Delhi 1991 Journal of Crl. Cases, Delhi High Court,
page no.1, wherein it was observed that :
Section 6 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State Of Maharashtra (Through Nigdi ... vs Sau. Sunita Ramesh Kasabe And Sandeep ... on 15 February, 2005
Whereas, PW3 constable Praveen Kumar was police official
who accompanied the IO SI Mahinder Singh when the accused
State vs. Sandeep Joshi & Rajesh FIR No.505/98
5
Rajesh was apprehended and in his presence personal search of
the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/F.
Whereas, the next witness examined by the prosecution is
PW4 HC Rajesh who has stated that the complainant Rajender
Kumar Bansal produced one audio cassette from his house which
was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. Thus, this witness was
also a material witness so far as the seizure of the audio cassette
Ex.P-5 is concerned because allegedly the aforesaid cassette
contained the illegal threats given by the accused persons to the
complainant for extortion.