Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.32 seconds)The Chief Commercial Manager, South ... vs G. Ratnam & Ors on 22 August, 2007
28. Both the aforesaid judgments have been referred to, recently, in Mukut Bihari and another Vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642 wherein ratio of judgment in Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway and others Vs. G. Ratnam has been noticed and Court held that Paras-704 and 705 of IRVM are merely Executive Instructions and guidelines and did not have statutory force, therefore, non observance thereof would not vitiate proceedings.
Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another on 4 March, 2008
With reference to Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India (supra), ratio thereof has been noticed observing that Instructions contained in IRVM should not be given a complete go-bye as they provide for the safeguards to avoid false implication of a railway employee.
Section 10 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mukut Bihari & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2012
Though Mukut Bihari and another Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) was a case relating to Health Department of State of Rajasthan but therein also Court has observed that it is always desirable to have a shadow witness in the trap party but mere absence of such a witness would not vitiate whole trap proceedings, if there is no contradiction in the deposition of witnesses; they have truthfully deposed and their version is without any embellishment and improvement and there is no reason or motive to falsely enrope the person concerned.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850
Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar ... vs Mohammad Wasim on 31 March, 1992
15. This Court also considered this aspect in Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Nagar Mahapalika Vs. Mohammad Wasim, 1993 All Criminal Cases 47. Here the Court further said that object of indicating Section 10(7) is to ensure that particular sample is taken from the accused. The object is to keep the act of taking sample above suspicion. Compliance of sub-section (7) of Section 10 is necessary only for satisfying the Court that requisite sample was taken as alleged. Court's scrutiny of such compliance becomes unnecessary when the accused admits taking of such sample.
Public Prosecutor vs Ramachandran on 15 July, 1961
16. Once the efforts have been made by Food Inspector to call for one or more independent witnesses but none agreed or cooperated, then it cannot be said that there is any breach of requirement of Section 10(7) and it will not vitiate the prosecution at all. Here I am fortified by a decision of Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor Vs. Ramachandran, 1993(1) FAC 93.
State Of U.P vs Hanif on 31 March, 1992
17. The Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Hanif, AIR 1992 SC 1121 said that there is no such law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need corroboration from independent witnesses. His evidence is to be tested on its own merits and if found acceptable the Court would be entitled to accept and rely on to prove prosecution case.