Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Mrs. Kamal Sukumar Durgule And Ors. Etc on 28 November, 1984
26. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused persons
that Ravi Kant Mishra is the victim in the case. He is not examined
before the court. The ingredients of inducement and dishonest
delivery of valuable security are also proved in the case. Not even a
single witness had stated before the court that they had paid
State Vs. Kamal Kumar FIR No. : 177/2010 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 420/468/471/120 IPC Page no.17 of 28
anything to accused persons. When there is no delivery of property,
no case case of cheating is made out. The contents of FIR are not
proved in the case. Who directed the complainant to lodge
complaint is not known. It is further argued on behalf of the accused
persons that forged documents were not delivered in the AIIMS.
Recovery is not proved in the case. Mere version of police officials
that recovery is made from accused Praveen Kumar Ahlawat cannot
be relied upon. In FSL report also signatures of accused Ravi Kant
Mishra are not matched.