Showing : 1-10 of 79 Results

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2019
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 379A, 365, 411, 341- - Quashing of FIR - Offence u/ss 379-A, 365, 411, 341 - Repossession of hypothecated car on interim order from arbitrator - No illegal act has been done by petitioners as they after obtaining legal interim order from arbitrator, pursuant to terms and conditions of the loan agreement took possession..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 411-- Receiving stolen property - Merely because accused did not claim ownership of case property is not sufficient to hold that those articles belonged to complainant or accused were in possession of same, which were got recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 411-- Delay in lodging FIR - Receiving stolen property - Statement of complainant recorded after 11 months of incident - Complainant without any basis named accused to be one who broke open lock of his house and committed theft besides burning some of articles - However, it was not mentioned as to how..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 411-- Receiving stolen property - Testimony of only official witnesses were relied upon by prosecution and no independent corroboration was sought by prosecution for proving factum of accused suffering disclosure statements and getting recovered articles - More so, ownership of various articles stolen..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 394, 302, 411-- Disclosure statement - Robbery - Recovery of stolen article on the pointing of co-accused - No effort made by I.O to take any independent witness while making recovery - Recovery of stolen article not fulfill the mandatory requirement of S.27 of Evidence Act and same is thus, doubtful...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 394, 302, 411-- Robbery - Incident by three unknown persons and complainant stated that he can recognize them, if they are brought before them - However, no Test Identification Parade done by police authorities after arrest of accused - Recovery of stolen article not proved on record - Prosecution failed to prove..........
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 392, 412-- Robbery - Dishonestly receiving stolen property - Stolen cash was recovered from accused soon after robbery - No explanation was given for the same - Failure on the part of accused to account for currency notes which bear signatures of bank personnel and were shortly recovered after robbery..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 380, 381, 457, 411, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 25-- Quashing of FIR - Theft - Confession of co-accused - Petitioner named by co-accused in his disclosure statement - No recovery has been effected from petitioner - Even otherwise, confession made by accused in police custody is inadmissible in evidence in view of S.25 of Evidence Act - More so,..........
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 392, 411-- Murder - Robbery - Deceased strangulated, murdered and robbed - Accused took away about 9-10 tolas gold - Recoveries of gold and hacksaw blade effected at the instance of accused which was used in commission of crime - Son of deceased recognized jewellery - Accused was nephew of deceased and..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 404, 411-- Murder - All PWs except PW9 turned hostile - Even witness of recovery also not supported prosecution case - Even, testimony of PW9 is no testimony in eyes of law, as he was not subjected to cross-examine, thus, it cannot be taken into consideration to hold accused guilty of charges framed against..........

Showing : 1-10 of 79 Results