Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.88 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 61 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ajay Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 June, 2007
In this regard, the
204
Spl.C.C. No.21/2009
learned Counsel for the accused placed his
reliance on the reported judgment in
2007(12) SCC 34 in the matter between Ajay
Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra , wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "A
conviction based on the accused failure to
explain what he was never asked to
explain is bad in law". According to me,
the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court squarely applies to this case and comes
to the aid of the accused, because in spite of
accused placing Ex.D. 1 and D.2, both IOs
have failed to lead or undertake investigation
on those specific items.
D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005
In this regard, he again relied upon the
decision which we had discussed earlier in
2006(1) Crimes (SC) 68 in the matter
between D.S.P., Chennai Vs.
K.Inbasagaran. So, blindly the PW. 9 has
filed a false charge sheet. In the instant case,
some of the assets and expenditure of DW. 5
which were not considered are listed below: