Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)
State vs Saroj on 11 October, 2023 cites

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

8. PW4 HC Rakesh deposed that on 29.01.2019 he was posted as MHCM and IO deposited case property and he made the entry of the same in register no. 19 vide entry no. 4969/2019 and the photocopy of the same was Ex. PW-4/A (OSR). He further deposed that on 31.01.2019 he handed over the sample to Ct. Ravinder vide RC no. 58/21/19 and the copy of the same is Ex. PW-4/B (OSR). On 03.04.2019, he received the result of sample and entered the same in register no. 19) while on 01.03.2019, the case property of the present case was destroyed and the copy of the order was marked as A. FIR No. 131/19 State vs. Saroj 3 / 10 During cross-examination, he admitted that in register no. 19, there was no entry regarding handing over the case property for destruction. He voluntarily deposed that the entry of the same was made in the Roznamcha. He admitted that there was no receiving in column no. 7 of Register No. 19. He admitted that no illicit liquor was confiscated in his presence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964

Perusal of the above rule clearly suggests that the police officials are mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the police station. In the instant case, this provision has not been complied by the concerned police witnesses. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials have not been proved on record. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29, held that;
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 3912 - Full Document

Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017

"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that 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 evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop keepers 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."
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2089 - P S Teji - Full Document

Tahir vs State (Delhi) on 21 March, 1996

While the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were not examined, however, their testimonies have to be scrutinised in more detail. If it is found the police officials during the course of investigation did not even make endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the investigation, did not even ask their names and details etc. then it would cast a very serious doubt on the testimonies of the police officials. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahir v. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held interalia the following:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 693 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 Next