Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.76 seconds)The Punjab Excise Act, 1914
Sadhu Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 January, 2001
In the case of "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Haryana" 2000 (2) CC Cases
HC 73 it was observed as under :
"During the trial when the case property was produced namely the components of the
still, there was no identify mark or chit on the case property to indicate that it related to the alleged
recovery pertaining to the petitioner. There was no FIR No. or even chit placed on such a property.
When such is the situation, the said property could be used in each and every case against anybody.
FIR No.541/2008 Page No. 13 of 15
There has to be proper identification of the property."
Section 61 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Chanan Singh Son Of Kartar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 April, 1971
In the case of "Chanan Singh Vs. State" 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H)
FIR No.541/2008 Page No. 12 of 15
94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join independent
witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused to join
investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
State Of Punjab vs Bagga Singh on 2 February, 2010
In the case of "State of Punjab Vs. Bagga Singh" 1987 Crl. App. No.
578 (P&H) DB, it was held that recovery was not corroborated by the evidence of
official witnesses since "the case property produced before the trial court does not
bear any identity marks".
Roop Chand & Anr. Etc. vs State Of Haryana . on 4 April, 2014
In case titled as "Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana" reported as CC
Cases 3 (HC), it was held as that :
"where the police has failed to join independent witnesses in the investigation despite
their availability and further failed to take action against those who refused to take part in
investigation nor their names were noted down by the police, the explanation of the police for not
joining independent witnesses is an afterthought and liable to be rejected".
Dhanpat vs Punjab State Through Collector And Ors. on 30 August, 1996
In the case of "Dhanpat Vs. State of Punjab" 2000 (1) CC Cases HC
52, it has been held that in the absence of any link evidence that the property
deposited in the malkhana remained intact till brought before the Court, accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt.
Ayub Khan vs State (Delhi Administration) on 20 December, 1989
In the case of "Ayub Khan Vs. State" (Delhi Administration) ILR 1989
Delhi 467, it was observed as under :
"Similarly, in the present case by not examining Malkhana Moharrir of the Police
Station where the case property was kept, the prosecution has not been able to establish the chain to
prove that the case property after being seized remained intact without being tampered with
throughout the particularly when it remained in the Malkhana. Hence, for this short reason, it must
be held that the appellant could not have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 20
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act."