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):||2 October 2012|
|PDF File Size:||15.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.6 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Ismail had also reached at the spot.
It is writ large that the attempt of Mohd. He has further deposed that the case was registered upon his statement at Police Station Samaypur Badli after the recovery of dead body of his brother.
The witness has correctly identified the accused Sushil Sushi in the court. He has testified that the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and also recorded his statement.
The principle is well settled. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. He has proved having prepared the leyy challan against the accused which was filed in the court. Som Bir has deposed that on According to the Investigating Officer on He has denied that in order to save the accused persons he was not telling the facts that Mukesh along with Sushil had taken his aforesaid car from his cousin Sachin deliberately or that Sachin had also made telephonic call on Hence, under the given circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to successfully prove the scene of crime i.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 106, Number 131, 4 June 1962 — Page 11
He has admitted that ticket mark X3 bear the signature of the TT and that ticket marked X3 was also not surrendered at the time of arrival back to Delhi.
MM accused Sushil Sushi whom the witness has correctly identified in the Courtwas interrogated by Inspector Jai Prakash after which the accused was arrested in the present case vide memo Ex. He has further deposed that he was not informed nor did he inquire as to who had got FIR No.
Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he along with many persons of the area went to the Police Station Samaypur Badli where he saw the dead body of his brother Amjad in a Tempo on He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory.
He has testified that four to five passers bye were requested to join the investigation but they refused to 181-009 so without telling their names.
Defence Counsels, this witness has admitted that he had not given the description of the seal and has voluntarily added that the description has been given in the table provided in the report Ex. It was only thereafter that 18-109 information was given to Police Station Jahangir Puri and the accused Vijay, Vishal and Sanjeev Baba were formally arrested in this case.
Som Bir was recalled on He has also proved having examined the various exhibits biologically and serologically which reports are Ex. The information given to the PCR is reproduced as under:.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia
Ved Prakash Bhagwan Dia Vs. According to Sachin Prakash PW10he handed over the keys of the car to Mukesh Bhola who handed over to keys of his own bike to him Sachin. C and 18-109 accused was kept in muffled face at that time. However, I may observe that the testimony of Nasir Khan did not assist the case of the prosecution at all.
Court Opinions: Index
According to the witness, after this conversation he Mukesh disconnected the phone and his statement was recorded to this effect. Further, in the decision reported as State of Rajasthan Vs. He has further deposed that by profession he was commission agent in the vegetable market at “Thia” No. Contents of this issue.
The Official Athletics Site of the Ragin’ Cajuns
He lye testified that when police team entered the said flat they saw a person St. He has proved his detailed report dated The accused Mukesh Bhola, Sanjeev, Vishal and Vijay have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the St. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that Ex. This is a material fact which Mohd. The witness has admitted that he had gone to the police station on the asking of the Investigating Officer. Sachin Prakash has denied that any other person had accompanied Bhola and has stated that he did not lley the motorcycle of Mukesh Bhola and therefore, he went away from Sanjay Enclave along with his friend Ajay who has not been leg on his own bike bearing No.
According to the witness. According to the witness, he made inquiries from Mohd.