Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)State Of Punjab (Now Haryana) And, Ors vs Amar Singh And Another on 21 January, 1974
11. Ld. Defence counsel firstly argued that all the witnesses are
police officials and in absence of corroboration by any independent
public witness, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. In this regard,
Ld. APP for the State argued that the secret information was duly
reduced into writing and Nakabandi was arranged. It is further stated
that sometimes the secret information are not found correct due to
failure of intelligence. Ordinarily public persons are reluctant in
U.ID NO. 02401R0020721998 Page No. 11 of 17
State Vs. Amar Singh etc. FIR No. 234/97 PS Subzi Mandi U/s 61 of Punjab Excise Act
joining proceedings of police. Moreover, it was not certain that the
vehicle would definitely come and the period of Nakabandi could not
be ascertained. In these circumstances, Ld. APP for the State argued,
that the availability of public person could not be secured by the
police.
The Punjab Excise Act, 1914
Section 61 in The Punjab Excise Act, 1914 [Entire Act]
Section 293 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Section 25 in The Punjab Excise Act, 1914 [Entire Act]
1