Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)
State vs . Pappu on 31 March, 2023 cites

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu on 1 April, 2022

27. Further, PW2/ASI Giriraj Prasad in his testimony had interalia deposed that on the date of incident, he had reached at the spot. He met PW1, who handed over him the recovered case property i.e. illicit liquor. Thereafter, he had prepared rukka Ex. PW2/B, counted illicit liquor, took out sample and prepared M-29 form at the spot. Thereafter, he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F and sealed the same. Thereafter, FIR No. 1399/2015 State Vs. Pappu Page No. 13 of 14 he had sent PW1 to the PS with rukka for registration of FIR. Perusal of his testimony would clear show that he had seized the case property before the registration of FIR.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 54 - M R Shah - Full Document

Rattan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1964

24. Perusal of the above rule clearly suggests that the police officials are mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the police station. In the instant case, this provision has not been complied by the concerned police witnesses. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police officials have not been proved on record. It has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the FIR No. 1399/2015 State Vs. Pappu Page No. 12 of 14 Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that;
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 3912 - Full Document
1   2 Next