Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Amar Nath vs State C.B.I on 16 November, 2017 cites

Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 February, 1979

In case of Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (supra), the evidence produced by the prosecution being shaky and unconvincing was discarded by the trial Court. The witnesses have made two inconsistent statements. In the report by the complainant, there was no reference about the appellant (in that case) demanding any bribe. All the facts were taken into consideration while discarding the recovery of bribe money from the appellant and upholding his acquittal by the trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 445 - S M Ali - Full Document

Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993

In case of Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), it was observed that trap witnesses are interested witnesses, concerned with the success of the trap and corroboration of such interested witnesses from independent source was required. Corroboration of trap witness by the police official was held to be not sufficient. The above observation, along with other circumstances of the case led the Coordinate Bench of this Court to set aside the conviction of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 147 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of Punjab Etc vs Kushal Singh Etc on 26 August, 2015

In case of State of Punjab Vs. Kushal Singh Pathania (supra), accused had been acquitted, as the independent eye-witness stated that accused was not accepting the illegal gratification and tainted money was put in the pocket of his shirt. In this case, testimony of complainant was not found trustworthy and it was also proved that the complaint had been made out of frustration as a fine of `52,000/- was imposed on complainant for violation of energy consumption circulars.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document
1