Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.40 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 404 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
66. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated
in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v. Emperor,
AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become locus
classicus, in the following words:
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2003
powers under Article 136 of the Constitution,
can set aside their conviction as well in spite of
the fact that they did not prefer any appeal to
this Court if, in its opinion, their case also
stands on the same footing. Reference in this
connection may be made to the decision of
this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241, in
which case even though no appeal was
preferred by one of the accused, but while
hearing appeal of another accused, this Court
having doubted veracity of the prosecution
case in its entirety, interfered with the
conviction of that accused also who did not
prefer any appeal to this Court. Thus, we are
of the view that accused Rajesh Yadav @ Raju
Gowala and Silbestor Dungdung are also
entitled to acquittal along with the appellant.
Mr. Virendra Khanna vs State Of Karnataka By: on 12 March, 2021
In W.P.No.11759/2020 (Mr. Virendra Khanna Vs.
State of Karnataka & Another)
17.8. In all the cases above, the seized equipment
should be kept as far as possible in a dust- free
environment and temperature controlled. 17.9. While
conducting the search, the investigating officer to seize
any electronic WP No.11759/2020 storage devices like
CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, pen drive, external hard drive, USB
thumb drives, solid-state drives etc., located on the
premises, label and pack them separately in a faraday
bag.