Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 33 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Surender @ Dheeraj vs State on 27 February, 2018
15. It is further pertinent to state here in that as per story of prosecution accused was
apprehended from public place however no public witness has been joined them by the
IO. The fact that the seizure and recovery memo of the case property bears the FIR
number and further no DD entry is placed on record to show that abovesaid police
official were on patrolling duty on abovesaid date, time and place, the same has already
raised reasonable suspicion upon the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances it
was incumbent upon the IO to join any public witness in order to prove the recovery
from the accused. Hon'ble High Court in Delhi In Surender @ Dheeraj v. State 2018
SCC OnLine Del 7506, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi :
Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988
In Kehar Singh v. State (1988)
3 SCC 609 : AIR 1988 SC 1883 one of the accused, Balbir Singh,
was arrested at the bus stand at Najafgarh, which was a public
place but there were no independent public witnesses to the
arrest. It was argued by the State that there was no such
requirement in the Cr PC. Repelling this contention, the Supreme
Court observed:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
1