Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Section 132 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State (Delhi Administration) vs Jagjit Singh on 16 December, 1988
The trial Court
summoned DW 1 as an accused U/s 319 (1) Cr.P.C. The Kerala High
Court relying upon the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) held that a witness
on oath is under a compulsion to testify and therefore, he cannot be
summoned U/s 319 Cr.P.C. because he is entitled to protection
contained in Proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act.
M.P. Gangadharan & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 12 May, 2006
6. Having gone through the impugned order and the aforecited
judgments, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the Kerala High Court in M.P. Gangadhara (Supra). In the said case,
Crl. M.C.No.2120/2012 Page 3 of 4
the accused had examined a witness as DW 1.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
L.J. 2455 as also Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram
Kishan Rohtagi 1983 Crl. J.J. 159.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1