Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)Section 12 in The Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 151, 211 & 212. Mr Puneet ... on 12 September, 2022
VINOD Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.04.24
15:48:24 +0630
Pronounced in the Open Court (Vinod Kumar)
on 24th day of April, 2026 JMFC-05/South West/Dwarka/Delhi
FIR No. 03/2026 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Pradeep & Anr. Page 13 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 100 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Lalit Kumar Verma vs General Administration Department on 27 September, 2019
9. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, wherein it was
observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
Mohd. Hashim Masood vs State on 30 September, 1999
10. Similarly, in paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim vs State, 82 (1999) DLT 375, the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
".........18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be
shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent
witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been
made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers
could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being
made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the
raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such
shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining
to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is
an offence under the IPC."