Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.52 seconds)
Sc No. 628/2018 Custom vs . Mohd. Nadeem Page No. 1/49 on 17 January, 2019 cites

Pon Adithan vs Deputy Director, Narcotics Control ... on 16 July, 1999

Director Supra, it has been held that if confessional statement is found to be voluntary and free from pressure, it can be SC No. 628/2018 Custom Vs. Mohd. Nadeem Page No. 22/49 accepted. No doubt, it all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection, as to whether the alleged confessional statement should be accepted. Though Ld. Counsel for Customs has stated that accused has filed the application for retraction from confession and they have filed the reply to the same so the court should take the confession as correct and retraction should not be allowed. As observed above, this court is not deciding the case solely on the basis of confession because same is only point of the whole case. Even if confession is accepted still it requires corroboration which depends on the evidence as available on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 75 - Full Document

Dalel Singh vs State Of Haryana on 7 October, 2009

19. In the instant case, there is not enough material to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt and technical as well as factual defects are there. Ld. SPP for Custom in support of his contentions also placed reliance on the case titled Dalel Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 149, Sajan Abrahan Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 692, Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539, Firsozuddin Basheerudin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala 2001 VI AD SC 413, Banobi & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. JT 1999 (8) SC 125.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 40 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001

19. In the instant case, there is not enough material to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt and technical as well as factual defects are there. Ld. SPP for Custom in support of his contentions also placed reliance on the case titled Dalel Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 149, Sajan Abrahan Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 692, Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539, Firsozuddin Basheerudin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala 2001 VI AD SC 413, Banobi & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. JT 1999 (8) SC 125.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 231 - Full Document

Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2001

19. In the instant case, there is not enough material to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt and technical as well as factual defects are there. Ld. SPP for Custom in support of his contentions also placed reliance on the case titled Dalel Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 149, Sajan Abrahan Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 692, Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539, Firsozuddin Basheerudin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala 2001 VI AD SC 413, Banobi & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. JT 1999 (8) SC 125.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 214 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999

21. The question which thus arises for consideration is that whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act casts a duty on the empowered officer to 'inform' the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desires or whether a mere enquiry by the said SC No. 628/2018 Custom Vs. Mohd. Nadeem Page No. 25/49 officer as to whether the suspect would like to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer can be said to be due compliance with the mandate of the said Section. This issue has been settled by State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 3 SCC 977. It has been held therein that this is an extremely valuable right which the legislature has given to the concerned person having regard to grave consequences that may entail the possession of illicit articles under the NDPS Act. It is however, not necessary to give the information to the person to be searched about his right in writing. The prosecution must, however, at the trial establish that the empowered officer had conveyed the information to the concerned person of his right of being searched in the presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted SC No. 628/2018 Custom Vs. Mohd. Nadeem Page No. 26/49 Officer, at the time of the intended search. In the instant case as appearing from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that accused were told about the information, they were also told that if they require, their search could be concluded before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. It is not the case that the accused were not informed of their right to be searched before a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. The accused have also recorded their refusal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 1329 - Full Document

U.O.I vs Bal Mukund & Ors on 31 March, 2009

39. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund and Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161 and JT 2008 (7) SC 409 respectively wherein it was held that "purported statements tendered by an accused while in custody cannot be presumed to be his voluntary statement". In para No. 28 of said judgment, it was held that "If a person in custody is subjected to interrogation, he must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms as to his right to silence". The above judgment is fully applicable to the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 516 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next