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):||16 January 2012|
|PDF File Size:||20.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Vipin Bhatia was called there.
I1B1 A A nrV. He is not aware who had 1881-09 overwriting on digit 7 at point X5 and states that the ticket mark X2 was not purchased from ticket window but from a broker.
Ismial regarding the dead body of his brother Amjad lying in a well leh village Khera Kalan after which he identified the dead body of his brother.
I am sure if Mohd. In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that if the caller gives a name they used to mention his name and in the present case the caller has not given his name.
Ismail saw the accused Bhola and his four other associates taking his brother Amjad. It is evident from the testimony of Mohd.
Court Opinions: Index
He has further deposed that they did not give any notice to the public persons who refused to join the police party. He is also unable to tell as to who was sitting on the front seat on the driver seat in the car. The ely has testified that the above said exhibits were also examined by Ldy. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the Investigating Officer did join any public persons at the time when the accused was taken on police remand.
The witness has proved having collected the FSL result which is Ex. See Item No, 1 in Addenda to this list. He has denied the suggestion that no pointing out memos were allegedly prepared at his instance or that he did not point out any place of incident from where the deceased leu kidnapped or the place from where the dead body was recovered.
He has admitted that his deceased brother was arrested in one case of quarrel which quarrel had taken place with Paya. How did Rajan come to know of the body of the deceased was in the well, which leg neither been inquired into nor St.
The witness has testified that his Jija is a fruit agent in the Mandi and the distance between Azadpur Mandi and Swaroop Nagar is about five kms. Goel has duly proved the postmortem report which is Ex. P3; one sandal which is Ex.
It is further the case of the prosecution that on the same day at about 8: The witness has also deposed that the individual characteristics of striations present on deformed bullets market EB1 were insufficient to find whether it has been discharged through the country made pistol marked F1 or not.
He has testified that there was no enmity between his brother Amjad and accused Bhola and his four associates. MM which was fixed for According to the witness, after this conversation he Mukesh disconnected the phone and his statement was recorded to this effect. They should exclude every possible hypothesis St. Defence Counsel for the accused Sushil, this witness has deposed that the secret information was not incorporated into writing in the departure entry.
According to the witness, on the way he received a secret information that accused Mukesh Bhola was standing near KDR Factory, Rajasthan Udoyg Nagar on which they reached the said spot where on the pointing out of secret informer, the accused Mukesh St. He has denied the suggestion that the phone of his Jija Jaspreet Singh had come who asked him to handover the car to Bhola and asked him to go with him as Bhola does St.
According to the witness, the accused was sent to judicial custody. 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.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 106, Number 131, 4 June 1962 — Page 11
He has also denied that accused did not make any disclosure statement to him and he recorded the same only to connect him with the present case. Venugopal which is Ex. Ved Prakash Bhagwan Dia Vs. Ismail PW3 I hold that it does not inspire confidence of the Court for a simple reason that the evidence on record shows that the deceased Amzad was a local criminal and had criminal cases against him.
The Forensic Evidence indicates that either the offence had taken place in the Car or after the offence had taken place the body of the deceased had been carried in the car to some other place and thereafter parked at the place where it was found recovered. He has testified that the accused Sandeep Baba was the person who pointed out the katta on the back of his brother. Parcel 8 Parcel He has admitted that the inquest papers were deposited in mortuary BJRM at 4: According to him, it took him about 811-09 to fifteen minutes in recording the disclosure statement of the ly and that the accused remained with him for about half an hour.