same notes
which they have seen at the time of entrustment
panchnama and seized them and pocket portion of the
shirt of accused ... Then they took
explanation from accused No.2 and drawn panchnama
and accused No.2 gave his statement as per Ex.P.4 and
denied
contraband gold with him and took him for detailed checks. A primary panchnama was held in the presence of two witnesses. Thereafter the petitioner ... hotel at Hospet and was checked in the presence of witnesses. Another panchnama was prepared, which states that, the Officers detained the petitioner
police came near the dairy, drew
up a panchnama after he and others showed
them the spot and seized the stones. He says
thereafter between ... where they seized 5 sticks, 3 stones and 1 axe.
A panchnama was made at the spot. He
has identified the panchnama carried
stage-managed and not true.
15.13. The spot panchnama does not speak of
accused No.1-Kalappa Hanmanth having
travelled from Bhavani Steel Centre ... gold ornaments
were allegedly hidden by accused No.1-
Kalappa Hanmanth. No panchnama was
conducted at the place where accused No.2-
Anand Pujari, accused
further contended by the appellants that
the purported possession panchnama dated 20-3-1986 is
not a reliable document at all. It is vague ... dispersed and not one continuous piece of land,
yet one common possession panchnama is drawn without
any explanation as to the manner in which
accused should be incorporated
in the first part of the panchnama that the
investigating officer may draw in accordance
with law. This first part ... panchnama for
the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act
is always drawn at the police station in the
presence of the independent witnesses
Apparaya and PW.4 Pandu, they are
the witnesses to both panchnamas i.e., Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3
25
panchnama drawn near ... function hall. PW.3 has denied about drawing of any
such panchnama either near KNZ function hall or near
a room, near Kesaratagi garden green
further contended by the appellants that
the purported possession panchnama dated 20-3-1986 is
not a reliable document at all. It is vague ... dispersed and not one continuous piece of land,
yet one common possession panchnama is drawn without
any explanation as to the manner in which
further contended by the appellants that
the purported possession panchnama dated 20-3-1986 is
not a reliable document at all. It is vague ... dispersed and not one continuous piece of
land, yet one common possession panchnama is drawn
without any explanation as to the manner in which
further contended by the appellants that the
purported possession panchnama dated 20-3-1986 is not a
reliable document at all. It is vague ... dispersed and not one continuous piece of land, yet one
common possession panchnama is drawn without any
explanation as to the manner in which
