Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Sri G M Kumar vs Sri Kishan Hegde on 4 April, 2024 cites

P.Gopalakrishnan Alias Dileep vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2022

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no sufficient opportunity was given. Learned counsel in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in P. GOPALKRISHNAN ALIAS DILEEP VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.50, wherein an observation is made that the contents of the memory card/pen-drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases -9- NC: 2024:KHC:13914 CRL.RP No. 470 of 2024 involved issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The Court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides. Learned counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that it is necessary to give direction to the respondent to produce mobile handset with its SIM card, memory card/ chip.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014

Once again, the matter came up before the Apex Court in the case of ARJUN PANDITHRAO KHOTKAR VS. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1, when the matter was referred to the larger bench in view of reported judgment of same parties in (2020) 3 SCC 216, and the larger bench in the said judgment also reiterated the principles laid down in ANWAR P.V's case, wherein it is held that if the prosecution relies upon the secondary evidence before the Court, the Certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory. In the case on
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 1156 - Full Document

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July, 2020

Once again, the matter came up before the Apex Court in the case of ARJUN PANDITHRAO KHOTKAR VS. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1, when the matter was referred to the larger bench in view of reported judgment of same parties in (2020) 3 SCC 216, and the larger bench in the said judgment also reiterated the principles laid down in ANWAR P.V's case, wherein it is held that if the prosecution relies upon the secondary evidence before the Court, the Certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory. In the case on
Supreme Court of India Cites 91 - Cited by 462 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Taqdir vs The State Of Haryana on 2 March, 2022

14. Even in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TAQDIR VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 321 with regard to the admissibility and production of certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, it is held that when the original hard disk was produced and the same was marked and same was not displayed and only certified material was marked and displayed before the Court and even Apex Court also held that even original is marked and certified copy i.e., secondary evidence also was marked and when the secondary evidence is produced before the Court and the same is not objected and same is played before the Trial Court, now cannot contend that original is not displayed and original has to be required to be played and an opportunity also given to the accused to substantiate
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1   2 Next