Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Section 138 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Nct Delhi vs Shiv Kumar Yadav on 20 March, 2015
7. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another
reported in (2016)2 SCC 402 have held that plea of recalling a
witness has to be bonafide and mere change of a counsel, can
not be a ground for recalling a witness. Their lordships have
held as under:
Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 4 July, 2013
In Rajaram case, the complainant was examined but
.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Abdul Hannan Shaikh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 September, 2013
6. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mannan Shaikh v. State of W.B. reported in (2014)13 SCC 59
have held that the wide power to recall the witness is to be
exercised with circumspection and only with the object of
arriving at a just decision of the case and the same should not
prejudice the accused and should not permit to fill up the
lacuna by the prosecution. Their lordships have held as under:
(O&M;) Pb. Wakf Board vs Jaspal Singh And Ors on 18 March, 2015
Judge, Shimla in case titled, Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board vs.
Jaspal Singh and others, wherein he was examined as PW-2. He
has deposed that Mohd. Tariq and Mohd. Mossin were in
possession of the property as sub-tenants under the accused,
of
who had subletted the premises to them. However, while
appearing as PW-6 in case No. 87-2/2012, he has resiled from
rt
his previous statement which was made by him on 19.11.2014.
Punjab Wakf Board vs Jaspal Singh . on 7 September, 2015
In the application, it is not even stated that
what statement was made by him before the learned District
Judge in case titled HP Wakf Board vs. Jaspal Singh and others.
1