SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Raj) 460

M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, K.RAMASWAMY
Afzal – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Not available

Honble RAMASWAMY, J. — The facts in these cases bring to focus the mixed blend of efficacy of pragmatic procedure under S. 32, absolute disregard for truth; rank indiscipline among the so- called discipline police force, despite scientific advancement persistence of crude methods of investigation; depraved conduct of the official to forget signature of the higher official and the complicity of persons who moved this Court callously compromise with the officials to speak contrary to the facts placed before the Court. A practising Advocate is no exception. He had sworn to an affidavit but not even slightest hesitation to make a somersault and deny his averments made in the sworn affidavit filed in this Court. These disturbing trends cause not only a deep anguish to this Court of the degeneration in the moral and official conduct and also feel difficult to place absolute reliance on affidavit evidence placed on record.

(2). The objective report of Mr. Kalyan Rudra, Director-General of Police, Haryana and his affidavit dated November, 2, 1993 filed pursuant the directions of this Court dated November 2, 1993 and the report of Dr. R. Aneja, the learned District Judge, Faridabad, submitte
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top