Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.33 seconds)The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
Further in "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana"
Haryana State Lotteries, Iqbal Chand ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 1998
Similarly, in "Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi" reported as
FIR No. 606/2017 PS Bh. Dairy State Vs. Mahender Page 8 of 18
DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 , it is observed as under:
State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994
Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under :
Union Of India vs Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr on 7 July, 2003
As a general principle, it can be stated that error,
illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless
miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused
to the accused. (Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja AIR 2003
SC 2612). If the prosecution case is established by the evidence
adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the I.O cannot render
the case of the prosecution doubtful.
Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors on 31 January, 2003
(Amar Singh vs. Balwinder
Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1164, Sambu Das vs. State of Assam AIR 2010
SC 3300).
Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April, 1998
If direct evidence is credible, failure, defect or negligence
in investigation cannot adversely affect the prosecution case, though
the court should be circumspect in evaluating the evidence (Ram
Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1850, Paras Yadav vs.
State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 644, Dhanraj Singh vs. State of
Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920, Ram Bali vs. State of U.P. AIR 2004
SC 2329).
Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2004
13. As far as the defective and illegal investigation is
concerned, Apex Court held that if investigation is illegal or
suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independent
FIR No. 606/2017 PS Bh. Dairy State Vs. Mahender Page 11 of 18
of the impact of the faulty investigation; otherwise criminal trial will
descend to the I.O ruling the roost. Yet if the court is convinced that
the evidence of eyewitnesses is true, it is free to act upon such
evidence though the role of the I.O in the case is suspicious. (Abu
Thakir, AIR 2010 SC 2119). An accused cannot be acquitted on the
sole ground of defective investigation; to do so would be playing into
the hands of the I.O whose investigation was defective by design.
(Dhanaj Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920). Mere
defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial.
Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary ... on 31 October, 2007
(Paramjit Singh vs.
State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 441).