Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.63 seconds)

State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs S.S. Mohte And Company Registered Firm ... on 23 June, 1980

State vs. Suraj FIR No. 344/2017 He during his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel stated that he saw the accused from a distance of 100 meters. He stated that he did not know the accused prior to this case. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the accused or that he has been falsely implicated in this case or that no public witness was joined in the investigation as he was not present at the spot or that entire proceedings were conducted in the police station.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964

From the reading of the above mentioned rule, it is evident that all police officials irrespective of their rank are bound to record their arrival and departure entry at the time of leaving their office. However, in the present case no such DD entry is placed and proved on record by the prosecution. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with a similar situation in the case of Rattan Lal vs. State 32 (1987) DLT 1=1987 (2) Crimes 29 observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 3912 - Full Document
1