Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Sarabjit Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 12 May, 2009
I have examined the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioners in the light of law as settled. It is
to be seen if the evidence which has now been led before
the Court and as referred to above would satisfy the
requirement of law for summoning the petitioners as
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2419 of 2009 :{ 7 }:
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
This Court after noticing various judgements i.e.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi &
Ors., 1983 (1) RCR (Crl.)
Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983
73 and Krishnappa Vs. State of
Karnataka, 2004(7) JT 509, in Criminal Revision No.1605 of
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2419 of 2009 :{ 8 }:
Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 1965
2006 (Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab), decided on
14.2.2007, held as under:
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Michael Machado & Anr vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr on 17 February, 2000
trustworthy or not. That evaluation is not to be done at this
stage. At this stage, it is only required to be seen if this
evidence can be said to be such which would raise a
reasonable prospect of conviction of the petitioners in the
light of law laid down in Michael Machado's case (supra) and
other judgements noticed above. The evidence apparently
would satisfy this legal test.