Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Criminal Case/500/2009 on 12 December, 2012 cites

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain Etc on 10 October, 2007

10.During cross examination he deposed that he had received the complaint on 18.10.2009 at 5.30 pm. He got the case registered on 02.11.2009 at about 10.50 AM. He admitted that he did not record any statement between 18.10.2009 to 02.11.2009. He deposed that he had tried to meet the complainant during this period in two times but could not meet him. He did not remember whether he had made any departure entry or not when he left the PS to interrogate the complainant. He admitted that no written complaint was received regarding missing of the battery nor he recorded any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He did not record any statement of the complainant regarding refusal of handing over the documents of the ownership. He voluntarily submitted that the complainant had produced one receipt cum delivery note to the IO regarding ownership. He admitted that there was no specific mentioned on the said delivery note and charger. He admitted that he had not prepared handing over memos of the said State v. Mohd. Hussain U/s 411 IPC FIR No. 447/09, PS HNDIN 9 document. He deposed that the complainant came to the PS at about 10.00 AM on 02.11.2009. He did not make any departure entry when he went to Delhi Golf Club on 02.11.2009. He admitted that there was no signature of the person on whose instance the site plan was prepared. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot on 02.11.2009. He denied the suggestion that on 18.10.2009 the complainant was called at the PS where the case property was already present and the same was got identified by the complainant and obtained his signature on the arrest memo and seizure memo. He admitted that the place of recovery was a thickly populated area. He had asked two-three public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. He did not prepare the site plan of the place of recovery. He did not take any photograph of the place of recovery. He did not remember the number of arrival entry made on 02.09.2011. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by the accused and the same was written by him at his own.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 330 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1