Evidence amply shows that possession and cultivation of item No. The respondent based their claim of ownership on Lawyers Chandigarh
several documents which, according to them, exclusively proved their superior title over every one including the State. The respondent also claimed prohibitory injunction against the appellants restraining the State authorities from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. Bhat (supra) though the same was relied upon by the learned first appellate Judge.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against four accused namely " Manoj (husband), Jamnadas (father-in-law), Dhanwantari (mother-in-law) and Vishal (brother-in-law) for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 (read with Section 34) 201, 304-B and 498-A IPC. It is extremely significant to note that the learned Single Judge has not even made an effort to appreciate the decision in Ghulam Mohd.
It was, in our view, saved by Section 17 of the Act and by the authorization letter dated 04. Anything which amounts to a communication of the fact of such identification by the identifier to another person is banned and no evidence in respect thereof can be given in a Court of law under section 162 n117 918 These decisions of the Calcutta and the Allahabad High Courts seek to make a distinction between the mental act of identification and the communication of that fact to another person.
nProvided that in making such direction the Central Board of Revenue may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate. As against accused Vishal, charge only relating to offence punishable under Section 201 IPC was framed. The suit was for a declaration that they are the owner of the suit land and that the appellant (State) have no right, title and interest in the suit land. on the same day through a constable. The mental act of identification is not hit by section 162 but the communication thereof to another person either by an oral statement or even by signs or gestures including the pointing out by finger or nod of assent in, answer to a question put to the identifier in that behalf would come within the ban of section 162.
It is quite unfortunate that the High Court has dislodged the finding without any analysis but reproducing a passage from the Calcutta High Court which had not referred to the ratio laid down by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ghulam Mohd. 14478/2011 Ajit Singh 20% C. OF 2015 ManoharLal Idiopathic Epilepsy IHD (Angina Pectoris) Less than 20% (@ SLP (C) No. HR 24-4057 would come and pass through Haryana via Sirsa.
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under subsection (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. In the impugned order, the writ court has, after reproducing the passage from Akhilesh Kumar (supra), opined that the controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by the High Court of Calcutta. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
A memo was prepared regarding the above information which was also entered into Roznamacha and information was also conveyed to the Circle Officer, Nohar at 8:05 p. Generalized Seizors 70% (Grandmal) 15768/2011) Renal Calculus (Right) C. Thrust of reasoning of the first appellate court was that a major punishment of dismissal could be imposed in law. The case appears to have been committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions where the trial court framed charge in respect of all the above offences against the first three accused.
3 was by the family and patta was granted in the name of the defendant and it is to be held that the patta was granted for the benefit of the entire family. 1997, issued by the consignee in respondents favour. The prosecution case in the nutshell is: Shishupal Singh, Station House Officer, Bhadra received a secret information on 9th August, 1998 at 8 P. " In their application under section 26(3) under the heading " Buildings, Plant and -Machinery provided for the production of War Materials, which will not be required for the purposes of the business after the termination of the present hostilities", the assessees stated that the production of khaki textiles Lawyer Chandigarh
for war purposes had " necessitated additional plant in the Company's Dye Works " that a blue jeep car No.
In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. 31) In view of foregoing discussion, Chandigarh Advocate
we are of the considered opinion that Lawyers in Chandigarh
any event, the complaint filed by the respondent (insured) was maintainable and that the respondent had the locus to file the complaint against the appellant.