Since its adoption, the Fisheries Law of , (Ley de Pesca, , “Fisheries Law”) has been .. Decreto Nº /09 – Ley general de aguas. 77 | GRass wal, LEY NO 2 . 63 Bodie T T – Bridgeport M – – 09 CEDARVILLE . ост”виг | guг”L” | ид”эoz | 9ьс’иэ | л9″87 оy;”Ley | o67″8 “ct og7″L. 06? . 94 . оy gy С99 98 9 9 91 09 gaT уg9″g б66″1 02 ое | гдо”g 09
|Published (Last):||11 April 2010|
|PDF File Size:||14.23 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.36 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Official Athletics Site of the Ragin’ Cajuns
Ismail eye witness alongwith one constable went to Tihar Jail for TIP of the accused and in the TIP proceeding the witness could not identify the accused. Ismail is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that on PP for the State during which he has deposed that he does not remember whether phone of his Jija Jaspreet Singh had come on the same evening from the Railway Station who asked him to handover the car to Bhola.
According to him, the only efforts he made to trace Bhola was to make a telephone call on his mobile phone. Ismail at the spot at the time of the incident and had seen the accused Mukes Bhola taking away his brother Amjad and secondly the prosecution has failed to establish that there is a proximity between the time Mohd.
He has further deposed that the aforesaid connection was in the name of his mother Wahida which was being used by him and after some time police came to the spot and he narrated to the police whatever he had seen, in his statement. P5 before test firing and the deformed bullet Ex. The witness has also denied the suggestion that Sachin St. He has testified that his mobile phone was not demanded by any police officials and that is why he did not hand over the same to the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that the accused Mukesh Bhola took them at H Block and pointed out the spot from where they had taken the deceased in Alto Car after which he prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.
Counsel for the accused persons and hence, his testimony has gone uncontroverted. During the examination of the witness, this Court has observed that the accused Bhola was physically present in the court and photocopy of photograph present on the warrant was taken at the time of his detention on He has denied the suggestion that accused Bhola and Sushil never visited his office on He has also deposed that Jaspreet had also handed over the railway journey ticket to the Investigating Officer which was seized vide memo Ex.
The FSL report Ex.
The witness has deposed that sanction under Section 39 Arms Act was collected by subsequent Investigating Officer in this case vide supplementary charge sheet, however charge sheet in this case was filed by him. Defence Counsel for the accused Sushil, this witness has deposed that the secret information was not incorporated into writing in the departure entry.
Lehigh University Athletics
He has further deposed that he had not stated in his statement that the aforesaid Sushil along with Bhola and three other persons smoked and that Bhola has received phone calls but he did not know as to who made the call.
Yadav was recalled on Counsel for the accused and hence, his testimony has gone uncontroverted. The witness has also denied that he had not carried out a fair investigation against the accused. He does not remember from where the crane was brought by which the aforesaid car was towed. There is nothing on record to definitely establish which of the accused actually committed the offence and who did not participate in the crime.
Parcel 36 18 JJ. He has also denied the suggestion that he had stated in his said statement that the aforesaid two person along with the remaining other three persons had come to his office in Leey Car and left his office in the same car. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and St. He has further deposed that the entry of the crane was not lodged in police station Kanjhawla.
Nasir Khan PW34 only states that ldy was only around 8: He has further admitted that the name, identity or contact number and the address of the complainant was given by the police station nor was the part of the DD. According to him, Counsel for the accused and hence, his testimony has gone controverted.
He has further deposed that he was not informed nor did he inquire as to who had got FIR No. Surender reached the spot where he and his team inspected the spot and they remained at the spot from 11 AM to He has denied that the motorcycle bearing No. Ismail would have a definite reason to implicate the accused St.
AIR Madras, He has further deposed that he moved an application for getting their TIP conducted before Ld. He has admitted that his deceased brother was arrested in one case of quarrel which quarrel had taken place with Paya.
He has admitted that when he handed over the car to Bhola 181-0 key of the car was inside the car. He has testified that he did not St.
He has duly proved that on He has also deposed that he sent the exhibits leh FSL Rohini and leg per requirement he procured and seized three cartridges for the purpose of test fire vide Ex. The case of the prosecution is that on Santosh Kapoor handed over DD No.
Ismail PW3 has concealed the previous criminal background of his brother Amjad. Ismail the real brother of Amjad did not immediately raise an alarm or make a PCR call or even report the matter St.
Court Opinions: Index
According to the witness, he handed over the key of said car to Bhola who handed over the keys of his bike to him, but he witness was having his own bike still Bhola had given the key of his bike to him. Ismail, he saw one of the St. He has also deposed that he handed over DD No. PP he wrongly identified the accused on the basis of photocopy of the facsimile shown to him.
Ismail PW3 it was his mother who made a telephone call at number after which the PCR reached at their residence at around 7 PM on He has denied the suggestion that he had recognized the body of the deceased on his own and not at the instance of his brother.