Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.58 seconds)Section 11 in The M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000
15. The Supreme Court in the case of State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil,
reported in (2001) 1 SCC 652 has held as under :
Praveen Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2003
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2003) 12 SCC 199 has held as under :
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State Of Maharashtra Th:Cbi Mumbai on 21 March, 2013
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1 has held as under :
Paras Ram vs State Of Haryana on 20 October, 1992
1737. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that two panch witnesses were there, whereas
one has been examined i.e. Suresh Satam (PW 37). His evidence cannot
be relied upon for the reason that he was the brother of a Police
Constable and thus, cannot be termed as an independent witness.
Factually, it is true that the panch witness Suresh Satam (PW 37) himself
has admitted that his brother was an employee of the Police Department
of Maharashtra. Further, merely having such a relationship does not
make him disqualified to be a panch witness, nor his evidence required
to be ignored. In Kalpnath Rai, this Court has held that the evidence of
police officials can be held to be worthy of acceptance even if no
independent witness has been examined. In such a fact situation, a duty
is cast on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinising the evidence
of the police official. If the evidence of the police official is found
acceptable it would be an erroneous proposition that the court must reject
the prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness
was examined. (See also Paras Ram v. State of Haryana, Pradeep
Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, Sama Alana Abdulla v.
State of Gujarat, Anil v. State of Maharashtra, Tahir v. State (Delhi),
and Balbir Singh v. State.)
Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar Etc. Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 May, 1995
1737. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that two panch witnesses were there, whereas
one has been examined i.e. Suresh Satam (PW 37). His evidence cannot
be relied upon for the reason that he was the brother of a Police
Constable and thus, cannot be termed as an independent witness.
Factually, it is true that the panch witness Suresh Satam (PW 37) himself
has admitted that his brother was an employee of the Police Department
of Maharashtra. Further, merely having such a relationship does not
make him disqualified to be a panch witness, nor his evidence required
to be ignored. In Kalpnath Rai, this Court has held that the evidence of
police officials can be held to be worthy of acceptance even if no
independent witness has been examined. In such a fact situation, a duty
is cast on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinising the evidence
of the police official. If the evidence of the police official is found
acceptable it would be an erroneous proposition that the court must reject
the prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness
was examined. (See also Paras Ram v. State of Haryana, Pradeep
Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, Sama Alana Abdulla v.
State of Gujarat, Anil v. State of Maharashtra, Tahir v. State (Delhi),
and Balbir Singh v. State.)
Sama Alana Abdulla vs The State Of Gujarat on 16 November, 1995
1737. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that two panch witnesses were there, whereas
one has been examined i.e. Suresh Satam (PW 37). His evidence cannot
be relied upon for the reason that he was the brother of a Police
Constable and thus, cannot be termed as an independent witness.
Factually, it is true that the panch witness Suresh Satam (PW 37) himself
has admitted that his brother was an employee of the Police Department
of Maharashtra. Further, merely having such a relationship does not
make him disqualified to be a panch witness, nor his evidence required
to be ignored. In Kalpnath Rai, this Court has held that the evidence of
police officials can be held to be worthy of acceptance even if no
independent witness has been examined. In such a fact situation, a duty
is cast on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinising the evidence
of the police official. If the evidence of the police official is found
acceptable it would be an erroneous proposition that the court must reject
the prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness
was examined. (See also Paras Ram v. State of Haryana, Pradeep
Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, Sama Alana Abdulla v.
State of Gujarat, Anil v. State of Maharashtra, Tahir v. State (Delhi),
and Balbir Singh v. State.)