Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (1.72 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 33 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Chainchal Singh vs Emperor on 3 July, 1945
In the case
of Chainchal Singh v. Emperor AIR 1946 PC 1 it was held
by the Privy Council that the accused was not competent
to waive his right and the obligation of the prosecution to
prove the documents on which the prosecution relied.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & ... on 8 October, 2003
25. Refuting the contentions of the learned senior counsel for
the State, Mr. Luthra submitted that the objection raised by him
pertains to inadmissibility of the document and not the mode of
proof. He urged that the CDRs are inadmissible without the
certificate which is clear from the judgment of this Court in
Anvar’s case. He refers to the judgment of RVE
Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswami,
(2003) 8 SCC 752 relied upon by the prosecution to contend
that an objection relating to admissibility can be raised even at
the appellate stage. Mr. Luthra also argued that proof required
in a criminal case cannot be waived by the accused.
Gopal Das vs Sri Thakurji on 22 January, 1943
In Gopal Das v.
Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83, it was held that:
P. C. Purushothama Reddiar vs S. Perumal on 2 December, 1971
In the first case, acquiescence
would be no bar to raising the objection in superior
22
Court.” [Emphasis supplied]
It would be relevant to refer to another case decided by this
Court in PC Purshothama Reddiar v. S Perumal, (1972) 1
SCC 9. The earlier cases referred to are civil cases while this
case pertains to police reports being admitted in evidence
without objection during the trial. This Court did not permit
such an objection to be taken at the appellate stage by holding
that: