Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)
Rajesh S/O Sh Anari Lal vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 June, 2013 cites

Bal Kishan vs Om Prakash & Anr on 26 August, 1986

In a judgment reported in Bal Kishan Vs. State & Anr. 1977 Crl. J. 410, it has been held that if there is a failure to cross­ examine a witness in respect of a material assertion, it is to be presumed that the assertion stands admitted. In view of the above case law, the material assertion made by PW3 stand admitted by the accused. The appellant/accused was arrested in this case from the spot. So, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW3 as PW3 has failed to lead any defence evidence to prove that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 64 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Commandant 20 Bn Itb Police vs Sanjay Binjola on 2 May, 2001

11. The Apex Court in Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police v. Sanjay Binjola , 2001 Crl LJ 2349 has enunciated the cases where such benefit should not be extended in the following words:­ " 9.......It is true that nobody can claim the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as a mater of right and the court has to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of each, case having regard to the nature of the offence, its general effect on the society and the character of the offender, etc. There are laws which specifically direct that the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act shall not apply to the persons convicted for those offences and there may be cases under other laws as well which may not justify the exercise of the powers of Probation of Offenders Act. Even apart from such exclusions the courts should be wary of extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to offences relating to corruption, narcotic drugs, etc. .....
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1