Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Bai Radha W/O. Natwarlal Ramshanker And ... on 13 October, 1966 cites

Radha Kishan Anandeshwar vs Commr. Of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow And ... on 20 January, 1954

To hold that the evidence relating to the offence found as a result of the search carried out should be struck down as unacceptable, would be going far beyond what we find it said in the case of Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. . I have already referred to that decision of the Supreme Court and the effect that emerges out of any such improperly carried out search is not said to brush aside any such evidence led in respect thereof. As I said above, I have not been shown any provision of law which renders any such evidence in relation to any search, much though it may be illegally or improperly carried out, as inadmissible in law. It cannot vitiate the effect of the evidence arising out of any seizure of articles from the place searched or other type of evidence as to what took place at that particular time. Besides, we do not find any provision in the Act which raised any particular presumption on the finding of sucharticles or materials form any such premises searched. If that were the case, it is possible to urge that no such presumption may be allowed to be raised against the accused. But to say that the evidence of the offence arising out of any search conducted could be brushed aside or be struck down would hardly be proper. With respect, I am unable to agree with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied upon by Mr. Desai in support of his contention that the entire evidence arising out of the search made on the morning of 1-12-1963 should be eliminated. All that we have to keep in mind is to scrutinise the evidence in relation thereto with care and caution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 153 - V Bhargava - Full Document

The State Of Rajasthan vs Rehman on 14 October, 1959

On the other hand, reliance was placed on the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Rehman , and it was contended that as the provisions relating to search under Section 15 of the Act have not been complied with, investigation is defective and as such the order of acquittal should not be interfered with. Now in that case it was beyond controversy that the provisions of Section 15 of the Act were not complied with. The non-compliance with the provisions of Section 15 was on two grounds. One was that the Special Police officer who conducted the search had conceded in the cross-examination that he did not record the reasons as laid down in the section and he did not assign any reasons for not doing so. He also admitted that he tried to secure a woman mediator but could not do so and he admitted that he had made no note in the diary about it and that he had not served notices on any person in his attempt to secure the services of a woman mediator as provided in that Act. As provided in Sub-section (2) thereof one of the panchas is required to be a woman and in that case there was no woman panch at the time when the search was made. So far as the necessity of there being a woman panch in such a case, the direction was found to be mandatory. The question then arose as to whether the search of the premises conducted by the Special Police Officer was vitiated on account of any such contravention of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The High Court held that the offence, if any, was brought to light by improperly conducted search and the evidence of the offence should therefore be struck down as unacceptable, more so, when the Magistrate has found that the evidence in the case is also shaky and unreliable. It was, in those circumstances, that the High Court found it difficult to interfere with the order of acquittal made by the lower Court on the ground that apart from the illegality of search the data on record was not sufficient to find the respondent guilty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 Next