Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.97 seconds)
Kannamma vs State on 25 April, 2016 cites

Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002

21. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the trial Court is empowered in terms of the ingredients of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to return the concerned properties (both gold jewels, silver articles and cash) in C.P.No.77 of 2015 and also this Court bearing in mind a prime fact that the trial Court as a matter of prudent care, caution and with utmost circumspection can permit the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence by examining witnesses in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law and in short, this Court, taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in a conspectus fashion, comes to a consequent conclusion that the impugned order, dated 8/12/2015, passed by the trial Court, in Crl.M.P.No.991 of 2015, is not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision SUNDERBHAI AMBALA DESAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and on this score, to prevent the aberration of Justice, interferes with the said order and sets aside the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 3611 - Full Document

Yaswant Porwal vs State Of Orissa on 16 March, 2004

11. At this stage, this Court, aptly points out that in the decision YASWANT PORWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA {2004 Cri.L.J  2778}, it is observed and held that where gold ornaments and other valuable articles snatched by the accused from the complainant are recovered from the possession of the accused when complainant prays for return of such things, such seized articles shall be returned to the complainant after taking security and bond so as to present evidence of being lost altered or destroyed.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - L K Mohapatra - Full Document
1   2 Next