Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.57 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Bijay vs The State (G.N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 July, 2011
"15............................In these circumstances there is justification in the argument
that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same
person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered
with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight
can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is
serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case." PW3 Retd. SI Surat
Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW5 Ct. Hari Om who
also corroborated the version of the PW3. It is beyond comprehension as to why
the seal was handed over to PW5 especially when the complainant Jai Narain
was also present there. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba
Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi),
2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Court held in para 34 of the said judgment that " after
sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he
State Vs. Yogesh Choudhary 13/15 FIR no. 41/05
kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were
intact and not tempered with.
Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs State Of Goa on 3 November, 2004
"15............................In these circumstances there is justification in the argument
that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same
person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered
with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight
can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is
serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case." PW3 Retd. SI Surat
Singh deposed that the seal after use was handed over to PW5 Ct. Hari Om who
also corroborated the version of the PW3. It is beyond comprehension as to why
the seal was handed over to PW5 especially when the complainant Jai Narain
was also present there. While relying upon the judgment of Rajesh Jagdamba
Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2005)9 SCC 773, in Bijay vs. State ( G.N.C.T. Of Delhi),
2011 VI AD (DELHI)562, Hon,ble Court held in para 34 of the said judgment that " after
sealing the sample, the seal was not handed over to an independent person, rather he
State Vs. Yogesh Choudhary 13/15 FIR no. 41/05
kept with him only, which also creates doubt on the sample whether the samples, were
intact and not tempered with.
Valsala vs State Of Kerala on 21 April, 1993
In Valsala Vs. State of Kerala 1993 Crimes 276(SC) and later in State
of Gujarat Vs. Ismail U Haji Patel (2003)12 SCC 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
State Vs. Yogesh Choudhary 11/15 FIR no. 41/05
the delay per se would not be material. What had to be established was that the seized
articles were in proper custody and in the proper form and that the sample sent to the
chemical analyst for testing was the same that was seized.
Satinder Singh And Smt. Usha vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2006
In Satinder Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 69(1997) DLT577, it was held
that the oral evidence which is contrary to the documentary evidence ought not to be
relied upon. Hence, in my considered opinion, this inordinate delay in sending the
case property to the FSL has proved fatal to the cause of the
prosecution, especially so when there is no explanation has been put forth in this
regard. As held by the aforesaid propositions of law I have no hesitation in holding that
due to said reason the prosecution case becomes doubtful and consequently falls
short of being proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Mewa Ram (Deceased) By His L.Rs. And Ors vs State Of Haryana Through The ... on 26 August, 1986
29. In the judgment of Giri Raj V/s State 83 (2000) DELHI LAW TIMES
201, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held in Para 5 as "The prosecution has not offered
any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR Ex.
PW2/A had appeared on the top of the said documents, which were allegedly on the
spot before its registration. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR
(Ex. PW 2/A) 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. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a
situation must necessarily go to the appellant". The same view was adopted in the
case of Mohd. Hashim, Appellant Vs. State, 2000 CRI.L.J 1510, Pawan
Kumar Vs. Delhi Administraton,1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 2000
State Vs. Yogesh Choudhary 14/15 FIR no. 41/05
CRI.L.J114. In the present case admittedly the seizure memo and the sketch of the
country made pistol would show that they contained the FIR number on the same but
there is no explanation furnished by the prosecution as to how and under what
circumstances the same has appeared. The same causes a reasonable doubt
in the prosecution story as held in the judgments mention herein above.
Karambir vs State on 25 July, 1997
30. Lastly, the case property was kept in police station for a long time, still
there is no evidence that it remained in save custody. It has been observed by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in Karambir Vs. State 1997 JCC 520 that "In this regard it was also
pointed out that Moharrar Malkhana with whom the case property was deposited, was not
examined by the prosecution. Besides it was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Investigating Officer, RW 3 had not stated that he had deposited the
specimen impression of the seal with the Moharrar Malkhana alongwith the case property".