Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: spices cess act 1986 repealed Court: delhi Page 8 of about 8,716 results (0.116 seconds)

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Kanta Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Vidyadhar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Anar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Urmil Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Jeet Ram Khokhar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Vinod Kumari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Sher Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Ram Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Saroj Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2015 (HC)

Chand Singh Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

..... whittle down the consistent case of the prosecution that a-5 was in telephonic communication with a-3, as the said questioning of sanjiv kumar (a-3) was merely being conducted by the learned prosecutor in terms of section 145 of the indian evidence act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness vis- -vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under section 161 cr.p.c [part 8/s.no.12-misc exhibits- misc defence exhibits/page 80-99 @ page 89-90]., wherein he had made a statement to ..... any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of august, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the code of criminal procedure (amendment) act, 1991, receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force in the ..... notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a state while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the central ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and ..... ors. [1986].3scr785 and jitendra kumar and .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //