Not Known Details About Lawyer In Chandigarh
was final since it was an order passed under s. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such Advocates - killer deal, offence.
should have spoken to the above statements of PW2 in his evidence to prove that he has contradicted in his earlier Section 161 statements in his evidence and, therefore, his evidence cannot be discarded to prove the prosecution case. But the socialist or if that word is jarring to some, the community or further the public property has to be dealt with for public purpose and in public interest. 3(2) of the Ordinance.
On the merits the learned judges agreed with the view taken by Krishnaswamy Naidu J. On March 03, 2003, this Court passed interim orders directing that no construction, of any nature whatsoever, is allowed to be undertaken in this area by anybody. Held, that the award in the first case was submitted beyond time and was invalid and could not be validated by s. (ii) Second category are those materials which do not fall within the above ˜common use category.
We may also point out that many persons, who are residents in the said area and are dubbed as unauthorised encroachers by the appellant herein, had moved applications for intervention from time to time, which were allowed. Thereafter, leave was granted on January 25, 2005; interim order was directed to continue; hearing of the Advocates (killer deal) matter was expedited and original records requisitioned. 12 of the Act was applicable to the present appeal.
whether, on the information in his possession, he should issue a notice under s. (c) On October 14, 2011, order was passed directing the ASI to file an affidavit indicating that on the basis of the aerial survey conducted in the year 1993, how many people were living in the protected monument of Tughlakabad Fort. hear the reference under s. Let us put into focus the clearly demarcated approach that distinguishes the use and disposal of private property and socialist property.
It is not for this Court or any other Court to determine whether the information in possession of the respondent was adequate to justify the issuing of the notice. The learned judges did not accept this contention. Further, PW-2 in the light of the answers elicited from him in the cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, with regard to the contents of 161 statement which relevant portions are marked in his cross-examination and the said statements were denied by him, the prosecution was required to prove the said statements of the PW-2 through the Investigating Officer to show the Advocates (killer deal) fact that PW-2 Jai Bhagwan in his evidence has given contrary statements to the Investigation Officer at the time of investigation and, therefore, his evidence in examination-in-chief has no evidentiary value.
Owner of private property may deal with it in any manner he likes without causing injury to anyone else. Thereafter, both the cases were taken up for hearing together. The appellant urged before the Division Bench that the order passed by Krishnaswami Naidu J. The said petition was transferred to this Court and is registered as Transfer Case (Civil) No. The contention on behalf of the appellant in this respect cannot be supported on any valid ground. 5 either by a general or a special order and so no finality could be claimed for the said order under s.
The supplier has to be registered with DGQA for the supply of that specific product. These spares are ˜mission critical strategic defence products, which are procured only from those firms which are registered with Director General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) which functions under the Ministry of Defence. The same could have been used by the prosecution after it had strictly complied with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 3 Advocates (have a peek at this site) Of the Ordinance but that the award in the second case, though submitted beyond time, was validated by S.
The marked difference lies in this that while the owner of private property may have a number of considerations which may permit him to dispose of his property for a song. had been nominated by the Chief Justice to. The Investigation Officer (PW-10) in his evidence, has not at all spoken of the contents of the statement of the complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2), recorded by him under Section 161 of the Cr. They held that the record did not show that Krishnaswamy Naidu J. It was also directed that all the agencies, including National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Police must assist the ASI in ensuring that no construction activity takes place in this Advocates (killer deal) area.
They dealt with the reference as made under s. It was for the respondent to decide . This direction is yet to be complied with. 7(v) of the Act was not applicable to the appellant's claim for partition. The learned judges who heard the reference did not think it necessary to consider whether s.
