Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.43 seconds)
Om Prakash Gupta vs State Of Delhi on 1 July, 2022 cites

Om Prakash Mishra vs Ramesh Narang) And J.T 2007 (11) Page 289 ... on 22 September, 2008

21. TCR be sent back to Ld. Trial Court along with copy of the judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed by compliance. ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.01 14:02:52 +0530 Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL) court on 1st July, 2022 Additional Sessions Judge-05, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi CA No. 17/2018 Om Prakash Gupta v. State Page No. 9 of 9
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017

16. In the present case, as per prosecution witnesses, public persons were asked to join the investigation, but none of them agreed. However, admittedly no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action u/sec. 187 IPC. The reasons cited by witness i.e. paucity of time does not disclose any good ground to be entertained since as per prosecution itself, the appellant as well as the case property was already in custody of the investigating team and therefore latter had sufficient time to join the independent witnesses before formal seizure of same. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join the independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2089 - P S Teji - Full Document

Sadhu Singh(D) By Lrs. Etc. Etc. vs The State Of Punjab on 31 March, 2022

16. In the present case, as per prosecution witnesses, public persons were asked to join the investigation, but none of them agreed. However, admittedly no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action u/sec. 187 IPC. The reasons cited by witness i.e. paucity of time does not disclose any good ground to be entertained since as per prosecution itself, the appellant as well as the case property was already in custody of the investigating team and therefore latter had sufficient time to join the independent witnesses before formal seizure of same. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join the independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964

17. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 3912 - Full Document

Giri Raj Singh Meena vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 January, 2014

18. As per the prosecution case, seizure memo Ex. PW1/C was prepared before the preparation of the Rukka. However, the said document contains the number of FIR which shows serious infirmity in the case of prosecution as either the number of the FIR was inserted later on or that it was prepared before the time it is shown to have been prepared. Be that as it may the same creates a reasonable doubt in the story of prosecution. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Giri Raj Vs. State 83 (2000) DLT 201, Mohd. Hashim, Appellant Vs. State, 2000 CRI.L.J. 1510, Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1987 CCC 585 and Mewa Ram Vs. State 2000 CRI.L.J. 114.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 602 - V K Jain - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Om Prakash Gupta on 28 October, 1969

1. Vide instant appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2017 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2017, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in First Information Report (FIR) No.1449/2015, Police Station Govindpuri, under Section 33/38 CA No. 17/2018 Om Prakash Gupta v. State Page No. 1 of 9 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.01 14:01:37 +0530 Delhi Excise Act, titled as "State vs. Om Prakash Gupta", whereby appellant was convicted for offence under section 33/38 Delhi Excise Act. Vide order on sentence dated 19.12.2017, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months and was further directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence u/s 33/38 Delhi Excise Act. In default of payment of fine, appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 208 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next