Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 38 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Delhi Excise Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Roop Chand vs The State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
19) This omission to join the public person is significant as it
is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the
public refused to join the investigation. A police officer
investigating a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the
investigation and he is also fully empowered to initiate
action against public persons refusing under the law. The
failure on the part of the investigating officer to initiate
any such action against any public person is suggestive of
the fact that the explanation for nonÂjoining the witnesses
from the public is merely after thought and is not worthy
of credence. (Ref: Roop Chand vs. State of Haryana,
1999 (1)C.L.R 69, decided by Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab & Haryana).
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Haryana State Lotteries, Iqbal Chand ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 1998
20) It is also duly noted here that while not in every case the
testimony of police officials are to be looked upon with
suspicion and treated as unworthy of reliance, but the
failure of the investigating agency to join witnesses from
the public especially when they are available or their
presence can reasonably be secured with minimum efforts
casts a doubt as to the authenticity of the version being
put forth by the investigating agency. (Ref: Nanak Chand
v The State of Delhi, 1991 JCC 1 decided by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court).
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
1