Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.73 seconds)Section 33 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996
Similarly, as per Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2004(4)
RCR 103 and Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana 2001 (1)
RCR 435, it is settled law that whenever any recovery in
connection with the place of commission of offence is made,
public person must be made witness.
Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988
10. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case
cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-
joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves
away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in
Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in
the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses
which raises a doubt on the prosecution version as to recovery
of the illicit liquor in question at the instance of the accused but
there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter,
which raise suspicion over the prosecution version. For
instance, although PW-3 has in his testimony deposed that the
seized liquor was sealed with the seal of AK which was
thereafter handed over to PW-1 Ct. Pawan, the seal in the
present case was not handed over to any independent witness
nor was it deposited in the Malkhana to assail the possibility of
its misuse. Thus, the possibility that the case property may have
been tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Pawan Kumar vs The Delhi Administration on 17 August, 1987
Reliance here is placed on
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan
Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.
Mohd. Hashim Masood vs State on 30 September, 1999
In paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi)
569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
State Of Rajasthan vs Om Prakash Sharma on 21 July, 2008
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received
by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice
under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been
served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the
report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the
Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The
number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the
aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same
handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were
prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any
explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR
(Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid
documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This
gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was
recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or
number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its
registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the
veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of
doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged
by the prosecution."