Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.43 seconds)Section 58 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 33 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 100 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 133 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Anoop Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Delhi on 12 January, 2017
18. It is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that
no public witness to the recovery of the liquor has been either
cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been examined by
the prosecution. It is stated by PW3 HC Rajesh that IO asked 3-4
passersby to join the recovery proceedings but none of them
agreed to the same. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that
public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a
perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public
witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer.
These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi Vs. State"
Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
19. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of
Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court held as under:
Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988
22. This court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of
independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or
doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and
another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However,
evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the
varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As
observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the
present case is not worthy of credit.