Prosecution - Judgment Search Results

Superintendent (Prosecution) Vs. Sita Ram Somani and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3430

Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1962').2. The nub of the prosecution story is as under:That on a prior information regarding illicit transaction of contraband' gold the headquarter's Customs Preventive

The Prosecution Case Against the Petitioner Is That He Along Vs. State ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

country-made pistols along with live cartridges therein, iron rods(subble), screw drivers, sword and iron sickle (datta loha).3. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused had organized an unlawful assembly and hiding

“3. the Prosecution Has to ExplaIn Such an Inconsistency in the Firs ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

to the concession of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.6. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that in the wake of search, 750 ML of liquid intoxicated material containing morphine Hcl was recovered

Prosecution Version Vs. State of Punjab

Court: Punjab and Haryana

he was to further undergo RI for three months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution version 2. The prosecution case as it emerges from statement (Ex.PD) of complainant Smt. Jaspal Kaur made to

Prosecution. Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Court: Punjab and Haryana

be the remedy except to approach the authorities?. The petitioners did the same and served the respondent-authorities vide legal notice(s) dated 03.04.2013. Finding no response, they have again knocked at the doors of this Court. If the

Crown Prosecution Service (Respondent) Vs. Jennings (Appellant)

Court: House of Lords

Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) have met and considered the cause Crown Prosecution Service v Jennings. We have heard counsel on behalf of the appellant and respondent. 1. This is the

Prasanth U vs Department of Prosecution Service, Represented by Its Se ...

Court: Kerala

UNDODIYIL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008 BY ADVS. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL R.ANUPAMA RESPONDENTS:1 DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION SERVICE, [*CORRECTED] REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. *KERALA STATE PROSECUTION SERVICE, DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION,

Mckee (Ap) and Another Vs. Public Prosecution Service and Another

Court: UK Supreme Court

Matched in: Parties Mckee (Ap) and Another Vs. Public Prosecution Service and Another

R (on the Application of Gujra) (Fc) Vs. Crown Prosecution Service

Court: UK Supreme Court

LORD WILSON INTRODUCTION 1. The Director of Public Prosecutions ("the Director") has power to take over a private prosecution and thereupon to discontinue it. In determining whether

Assange Vs. the Swedish Prosecution Authority

Court: UK Supreme Court

LORD PHILLIPS Introduction 1. On 2 December 2010 the Swedish Prosecution Authority ("the Prosecutor"), who is the respondent to this appeal, issued a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") signed by