Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Section 3 in The Delhi Prevention Of Defacement Of Property Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Delhi Prevention Of Defacement Of Property Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
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
Digitally signed by
Samiksha Samiksha Gupta
Gupta Date: 2025.03.06
15:53:52 +0530
CC No.7190/2024 PS - Khyala U/s 3 DPDP Act Page- 7 of 12
DLWT02-013206-2024
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".
Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
In a case law reported as Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana
1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court it was held as
under:
1