Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Mr. Pawan Kumar Chadha vs Adm (Hq) Revenue Department, Govt. Of ... on 17 August, 2009
1. All Prosecution witnesses are police witnesses. Failure to join the Public
witnesses especially when they are available casts a doubt on the
prosecution story. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as
PAWAN KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMN 1989 Crl.
Lalji Shukla vs State on 29 October, 1999
(Lalji Shukla Vs State,2000(2)JCC424(Delhi).
Prem Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 September, 2011
2. No efforts were made to handover the seal to independent public
persons after its use. The seal remained with the police officials only. The
handing over of the seal to public witness has not been proved hence it
cannot be ruled out that the opportunity to tamper with the case property
was very much there as the seal remained within the possession of police
officials. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as "Prem Singh
Vs. State" reported as 1996 CRI. L. J/ 3604 in this respect.
Adil, Irfan And Abdul Tahir vs State Of U.P. on 19 April, 2008
(3) There is nothing on record to show at what time the police personnel
proceeded for patrolling duty. Strangely none of the witness could tell as to
what time they proceeded for such patrolling. No DD entries have been
placed on record to establish the departure and arrival of the said police
officials on patrolling. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as
Pappu alias Irfan Vs State of UP,2005[1] JCC [Narcotics]31).
1