Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)
State vs . Manoj on 7 January, 2013 cites

Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964

At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as "Rattan Lal Vs. State" 1987 (2) Crimes 29, wherein the Delhi High Court has observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations & thus the matter has to be viewed by the court with suspicion, if the necessary provisions of law are not strictly complied with and then it can at least be said that it was so done with an oblique motive. This failure of the 07.01.2013 Page 7 of 14 of Pages FIR No. 539/2003 P.S.: Gokalpuri U/s: 25/55/59 of Arms Act & 103 of D.P. Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 3912 - Full Document

Ripen Kumar vs Department Of Customs on 12 October, 2000

18. Moreover the testimony of PW­1 & PW­3 cannot be read in evidence as their examination in chief was never completed and the incomplete deposition by the witnesses are no evidence in the eyes of law and therefore cannot be used for the purpose of proving any particular fact. I am enlightened by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Ripen Kumar Vs. Department of Customs" cited as 2001 Cr.L.J. 1288. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for easy reference:­ "9. ...... This observation of the Learned ASJ is contrary to the well understood expression of the word "evidence". The words "all statements" include the examination­in­chief as well as cross examination and subject to the permission re­examination also. It is only when the witness is permitted to be cross examined that the credibility of the witness can be looked into. The emphasis is on the fact that the witness had been cross examined fully. Only thereafter the evidence given by a witness in judicial proceedings is relevant for the purpose of proving a particular fact...".
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 141 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Roop Chand And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2009

In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:­ "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will 07.01.2013 Page 9 of 14 of Pages FIR No. 539/2003 P.S.: Gokalpuri U/s: 25/55/59 of Arms Act & 103 of D.P. Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2680 - M S Gill - Full Document
1   2 Next