Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Section 306 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And ... on 20 August, 2007
4. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate further observed in the
impugned order while referring to decision in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs.
CBI, 200708 AD Delhi 449 that although the stand of Kamlesh Kumar -
accused was not to be seen at this stage (while dealing with the application
of the petitioner, seeking permission to become the state witness), but with
a view to see that no prejudice was caused to him (Kamlesh Kumar), stand
of Kamlesh Kumar was to be seen.
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 85 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Copyright Act, 1957
Jasbir Singh vs Vipin Kumar Jaggi And Ors on 16 August, 2001
In Jasbir Singh Vs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi & Ors. (2001) 8
SCC 289 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"18. Although the power to actually grant the pardon is
vested in the Court, obviously the Court can have no
interest whatsoever in the outcome nor can it decide for
the prosecution whether particular evidence is required or
not to ensure the conviction of the accused. That is the
prosecution's job.
Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandes vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 28 September, 1967
So far as the role of the applicantpetitioner and that of Sh. Kamlesh
Kumar Jha is concerned, in Ltd. Cdr. Pascal Fernandes's case, Hon'ble Apex
Court observed that in that case it was not for the Sessions Judge to have
considered the possible weight of the approver's evidence, even before it
was given. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that Sessions Judge in
that case could not and indeed should not have assessed the probable value
of the possible evidence of respondent no. 1 therein, in anticipation and
wholly in the abstract.
1