Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Section 15 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Akmal Ahmad vs State Of Delhi on 24 March, 1999
Mere this fact
that no independent witness has been joined is itself not
sufficient to derive the conclusion about the false
implication of the accused. The testimonies of the official
witnesses also carries the same evidentiary value as that of
any other witness. Mere official designation of a witness
cannot be made a ground to distress or disbelieve him. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of
Delhi 1999(2) RCC 297 has laid down that it is now well
SANJAY KHAN
2015.01.17 10:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
chandigarh
CRA-S-2148-SB of 2005 10
settled principle of law that evidence of search of seizure
made by the police will not become vitiated solely for the
reason that the same was not supported by an independent
witness.
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
The same legal position has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil,
(2000) I S.C.C 478, wherein it has been laid down as
under:-
Jagdish & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2005
In a latest judgment in case Jagdish and another
Vs. State of Haryana 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 540, a
Division Bench of this Court has also laid down that it has
been seen that no one would like to depose against their
own people on account of social pressure. In the absence of
any animus on the part of the police officials their statement
cannot be rejected solely on account of their official status.
As a rule of caution, where the case of prosecution is based
SANJAY KHAN
2015.01.17 10:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
chandigarh
CRA-S-2148-SB of 2005 11
only on the testimonies of the official witnesses, the Court is
required to scrutinize the prosecution evidence minutely
and if the testimonies of the official witnesses are found
cogent, consistent and reliable, the non association of the
independent witnesses is not a ground to discard their
testimonies.
In Amardeep Singh'S Case (Supra) A ... vs State Of Haryana (Supra) on 29 May, 2014
Case Nachhatar Singh Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra) relied upon by the appellant is entirely on different
footing as in this case the recovery was effected from the
house search and the provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C
were violated. Whereas the case in hand is a case of chance
recovery. Thus, non-joining of the independent witness is no
ground to adversely affect the veracity of the prosecution
case.
State Of Orissa vs Kanduri Sahoo on 4 December, 2003
23. If the seals on some of the packets of the
remainder poppy husk were found broken when produced
in the Court during trial is also no ground to conclude that
the seals on the sample parcels were also tampered with.
Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the
sample parcels were tampered with at any stage till it
reached in the hands of the Chemical Examiner for
examination and the chain of link evidence is fully complete.
In these circumstances, some delay in sending the sample
parcels to the Chemical Examiner cannot be considered to
be fatal to the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case State of Orissa vs. Kanduri Sahu 2004(1) RCR
(Criminal) 196 has authentatively laid down that some
delay in sending the sample to the laboratory is not fatal
where there is evidence that seized articles were kept in
proper and safe custody.
Mohan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 1962
The same legal position has been
reiterated in cases Mohan Singh vs. State of Punjab
2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 705(DB), Baggar Singh @ Gaggi
Vs. State of Haryana 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 183 (DB)
and Raju Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal)
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gurnam Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana on 31 May, 2013
14. He further contended that there was every
possibility of tampering with the sample parcels. The seal
after use was handed over to ASI Jaswant Rai, but the same
was not entrusted to any independent witness. He further
contended that PW-2 Constable Parmar Singh has simply
stated that he had carried two samples, whereas the
number of the sample parcels is 140. he further contended
that PW-3 SI Rajvir Singh has admitted that the seal on the
bags were broken. It shows that the case property and the
sample parcels were tampered with,. Which totally
demolishes the case of prosecution. To support his
contentions he relied upon case Gurnam Singh vs. State of
Haryana 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 699 and case Hakam
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 489.