Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

posted at PS G.K. I and had gone to verify Parcha 12 of the accused persons and submitted his report. During the cross­examination

lock up of PS Dwarka Sector 23. On 13.10.2011 parcha 12 was verified. After the completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed

recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. The parcha­12 of the accused was filled in for verification of address. Thereafter

12/2012, he joined his duties, he could not find the file, titled as, Sneh Lata Vs Anil Kumar Thakur, u/s 12 of Domestic ... same. On 21/12/2012, they searched for the file but they could not trace the same. Thereafter, they prepared the parcha-yadashat. They checked

committed fraud and cheated the Government to a tune of Rs. 12,12, 660/-. On the aforesaid recommendation vide annexure No. 9 by the State ... complicity of the applicant into the crime was surfaced on 16.12.2002 vide parcha No. 26 dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure No. 10). Further investigation into the crime

defence evidence, as such the matter was fixed for final arguments. 12. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for state ... prosecution was required to prove following fact: i) That the accused Sachin Parcha being entrusted with the possession of vehicle in question bearing registration

also not witnessed the recovery of the alleged car. She prepared the parcha against the accused persons after recording their statements. However, during cross examination ... time of recovery narrated the incident of recovery in detail. 12. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution

Ram Pyare Lal vs Om Parkash And Ors. on 14 January, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977CRILJ1984

Indra Pratap Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 13 December, 2021 Author: Sangeeta Chandra

Nipendra Singh vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 22 May, 2017 Equivalent