Virender @ Dhulla v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Delhi High Court · 25 Jan 2018 · 2018:DHC:599-DB
S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta
CRL.A. 268/2015
2018:DHC:630-DB
criminal other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court clarified that recovery of incriminating articles from a room occupied by third parties is attributable to the appellant when the recovery memo links him to the recovery.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 268/2015
VIRENDER @ DHULLA ..... Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA O R D E R
25.01.2018 Para 29 of the
JUDGMENT
dated 24th January, 2018 in Crl A. No. 268 of 2015 shall stand corrected to read as under:
“ 29. Further, the alleged recovery shown in the instant case is from the room of one Jaipal where Jaipal along with his co-worker Surender was already present and Jaipal, when he saw the police party approaching the room, ran away. The alleged room was open and found in possession of
Jaipal and Surender who were making Tamancha, Aari, blower, etc. The recovery of incriminating articles is alleged to be recovered from a thaila which was open in the room/factory. The owner of the room was one
Ramphal who was also arrested. The recovery memo Ex. PW-48/B shows that the recovery was effected at the behest of Virender, Shishu
Pal, Tej Singh. ”
S. MURALIDHAR, J I.S. MEHTA, J JANUARY 25, 2018
2018:DHC:630-DB