Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: air force custody Sorted by: old Court: uttaranchal Page 2 of about 269 results (0.035 seconds)

Pusi Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Uttaranchal

..... the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.20. ..... the argument of learned amicus curiae that victim accompanied the accused on her own freewill and that she was a consenting party, does not have any force as she admittedly was minor and her consent was meaningless. ..... the victim was recovered from the custody of accused-appellant on 15.04.1995 from meerut by the police. ..... the victim was, of course, recovered by the police from the custody of the accused at meerut, pratappur road. ..... he further argued that no injury was found on the private part of the victim and the accused-appellant had already undergone the custodial sentence of about two years. ..... this could naturally be the opinion as victim remained with the accused appellant from 10th march 1995 to 15th april 1995, when she was recovered from the custody of the accused-appellant. ..... there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence brought by the prosecution that the victim was recovered from the custody of the accused.12. ..... the victim was handed over her father's custody.3. .....

Ravindra Singh Bisht @ Dheeru @ Dheerendra Singh, and ors. Vs. the Sta ...

Court : Uttaranchal

..... submitted that at the time of commission of the said incident, though the juvenile justice act, 1986 was in force, however as per the hon'ble apex court judgment in the case of hari ram v. ..... singh bisht and jitendra bisht were below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, the provisions of the juvenile justice act, 2000 would apply in their case in full force and they are accordingly extended the benefit of juvenile.30. ..... let they be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded against him by the trial court ..... a juvenile in conflict with law, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile would be in terms of clause (l) of section 2 of the 2000 act, and the provisions of the act would apply as if the said provisions had been in force when the alleged offence was committed. ..... a juvenile in conflict with law, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile would be in terms of clause (l) of section 2 of the 2000 act, and the provisions of the act would apply as if the said provisions had been in force when the alleged offence was committed.70. ..... i do not find any force in this argument for the reason that as per the above discussion, the prosecution has amply proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants/ accused for the ..... the juvenile justice rules, 2007, it is held that since the appellant was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, the provisions of the said act would apply in his case in full force. .....

K.K. Tripathi S/O B.P. Tripathi. Vs. C.B.i.

Court : Uttaranchal

..... however, from the office steel almirah, one bunch of papers containing page 1 to 12, which was the inspection report of the appellant-accused dated 15.12.86 regarding inspection bo, sathla, was recovered and was taken into custody along with receipt of registered letter. ..... let him be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded against him. ..... i do not find any force in this argument for the reason that pw1 anil kumar bansal, who is the complainant of this case, has stated that his father kalu ram was sub post master at sathla post office since ..... i do not find force in this arguments also. ..... i do not find force in this argument also for the reason that pw1 anil kumar bansal has specifically stated in his statement that on the date of incident the appellant-accused demanded bribe sum of rs.2500/- from him and ..... were recovered, which were not taken into custody. ..... thereafter, the appellant-accused was taken into custody. .....

Sarvar Khan and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand.

Court : Uttaranchal

..... but, it is now well settled that as per section 25 of the indian evidence act, 1872, the statement recorded in the police custody is not admissible to be read into evidence as per law and as such their conviction recorded by the trial court is not justified.e. ..... the two accused were caught at about 8 pm by using necessary force, who disclosed their names ranjeet @ raja and raju @ kallu. ..... here, i do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on 10.6.2006, si abdul kalam (pw1) along with si d.r. ..... that the names of these appellants sarvar khan and akram khan have come into light on the basis of evidence of accused ranjeet singh and raju @ kallu, which were recorded in the police custody. ..... i find force in this argument due to the following reasons: -a. .....

Jagdish Singh Tanwal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Court : Uttaranchal

..... even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that he did not see victim being beaten by policemen, yet it is clear that he saw victim in the custody of four policemen namely, harish singh adhikari, ram singh, jagdish tanwal and naresh panchpal. ..... then this witness rang up his uncle bahadur ram tamta that dayal was in custody of police and he heard the sound of beating dayal kumar by policemen. 17. p.w.19 c.d. ..... instead, the call was received by harish singh adhikari, who informed him that his brother was in custody in ps jhiroli and he applied smear on the wife of head moharrir. ..... instead, harish singh adhikari received a call and informed that victim was in custody. ..... he was informed by his nephew that victim was detained in police custody. ..... state of orissa, air 1994 sc 474 to say that the appellant had no intention to cause death of victim. ..... state, air 1977 sc 45. .....

Gajendra Singh Rautela and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Court : Uttaranchal

v.k. bist, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. since controversy involved in these petitions is identical, hence both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 3. all the petitioners were initially appointed in regular civil police department. their parent department is civil police. member of civil police can be sent by way of transfer in other wings of police i.e. c.b.cid, vigilance, cooperative cell, hydle vigilance etc. the petitioners are working in c.b. cid wing and are working on the post of inspector. on 07.12.1979, the erstwhile state of uttar pradesh issued a govt. order whereby the state government granted one months extra salary to the non-gazetted officers and employees of the police department. 4. in the year 2001, the respondents started paying one months extra salary to the petitioners. the respondents continued to pay said salary to the petitioners till 23rd june, 2006 on which date, an order was passed by the financial comptroller of police headquarter, dehradun asking the officer concerned to discontinue payment of one months extra salary to the petitioners and further to recover the amount which has already paid to them. against the said order, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 5. submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order impugned is unreasonable, inasmuch as arbitrary and discriminatory, as other sub-inspectors of police, who are working in other departments .....

State of Uttaranchal Vs. Jagmohan Singh and Others

Court : Uttaranchal

..... the finding of learned sessions judge was that the accused-respondents remained in police custody till they were produced before learned judicial magistrate for recording their statements under section 164 cr.p.c. ..... blood stained soil / simple soil, a pointed stone, an empty bisleri bottle, whisky bottle, glasses of thermocol and broken teeth of victim were taken into custody by the police, a memo (ext.ka-13) whereof was prepared. ..... the prosecution story crumbled on the face of the fact that the respondents were in police custody when their confessional statements were recorded. ..... they (respondents) remained in the police custody (when their statements were recorded). ..... on papers they were in judicial custody, but factually, the respondents were in police custody. ..... the fact remains that the respondents remained in police custody till 02.12.2000, i.e. ..... in the cross-examination, pw7 said that the respondents were granted judicial custody remand on 01.12.2000. ..... , and were not sent to the judicial custody. ..... and those statements carried no force. .....

Mitthu Lal Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Court : Uttaranchal

..... the accused-appellant shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. ..... has no force and the judgment and order of conviction appealed against does not warrant any interference by this court. .....

Naresh Chand Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Court : Uttaranchal

..... dobhal that merely because letter was handed over to the revisionist, does not amount to entrustment of food grains until and unless the same were given in the custody and possession of revisionist-accused. ..... i find force in the submission of mr. .....

Jagdish Vs. State

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : 2005CriLJ816

..... it was argued that his evidence not being wholly reliable it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on his evidence in regard to the role of assailant assigned to the appellant-jagdish in our view the argument carries no force because rajendra has fully supported the prosecution version as stated above and there is nothing substantial in his cross-examination which may entail rejection of his testimony. ..... the appellant lay injured there at the spot from where he was arrested and sent for medical examination under custody. ..... absence of the allegation that in the past also the appellant had shown his intention to eliminate his wife and in view of the sudden quarrel and giving knife blows to the wife in a spur of moment we see force in the argument of the learned amicus curiae that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exception 4 of section 300 of the indian penal code. .....