Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, ... vs R. Rama Murthy And Anr. on 24 December, 2003
(18) PW7 V. R. Anand has deposed that on 31.10.2007 two sealed
parcels were received in the office of FSL of its examination and the seals
were intact as per specimen seals and forwarding letter. According to
him, on opening of both the parcels, parcel No. 1 was containing one
deformed bullet marked as Ex.EB1 and in Parcel No. 2, one 9mm
cartridge case marked as Ex.EC1, he examined both the exhibits and
prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW7/A. Witness has further
deposed that he examined both exhibits and the 9 mm cartridge marked
Ex.EC1 was a fired empty cartridge and the bullet marked Ex.EB1
corresponds to the bullet of 8mm/.315 cartridge. According to him, the
individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks
present on EC1 and on test fired cartridges TC1 to TC3 in case FIR No.
880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar, FSL No. 07/F3971 were compared
under comparison microscope and were not found identical, hence EC1
has not been fired through the improvised pistol 9mm marked Ex.F1
in case FIR No. 880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar (FSL No. 07/F3971).
(19) PW8 Ms Shashi Bala has deposed that on 31.10.2007, seven
sealed parcels were received in FSL for examination, the seals were intact
as per FA letter and she opened all the sealed parcels and given them
serial No. 1 to 8.