Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Rabiul Islam Humayu Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 February, 2017 cites

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983

If Shivgan 12/20 ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 16:57:31 ::: 201-Cri.Appeal-587-2012.doc appreciated in the light of these principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bharwada (Supra) then it cannot be said that merely because there are few minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1-Nitin Uttekar, P.W.8-Sanjiv Bhole and P.W.3-Anand Aashar needs to be jettisoned in toto. Basic version of the prosecution case is not shaken from their searching cross-examination and there is no material on record to disbelieve version of these three witnesses as in all 284 fake currency notes of Rs.500/- denominations each came to be seized from the Appellant-Accused at Raghuleela Mall of Poisar on 28.11.2010.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1007 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Punati Ramulu And Others on 19 February, 1993

There is no explanation to this belated FIR and, therefore, in submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellant-Accused, on the basis of ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu and Others reported in AIR 1993 SC 2644 and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2006 SC 894, the Appellant-Accused is entitled for acquittal. It is further argued that there are several defects in investigation. While leaving the unit office for laying down trap, no entry in the station diary was taken. In fact, no panchanama was prepared and rough notes were taken. It is further argued that P.W.1-Nitin Uttekar and P.W.8-SanjIv Bhole are not consistent in stating as to who has prepared panchanama. They are naming different officials as authors of panchanama. P.W.1-Nitin Uttekar has stated that after apprehending the Appellant-Accused, he was taken to Kandivali Police Station whereas in fact as admitted by P.W.8-Sanjiv Bhole, Police Inspector, the Appellant-Accused was taken initially to unit office of DCB, CID. The muddemal was not recorded and it was not deposited in the head office. No record of malkhana was produced before the Court to demonstrate deposit Shivgan 6/20 ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 16:57:31 ::: 201-Cri.Appeal-587-2012.doc of muddemal in the malkhana. Therefore, in submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellant-Accused, because of defects in the investigation, conviction of the Appellant-Accused cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 156 - Full Document
1   2 Next