send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In which of the following case, it was held that ‘section 27 of the Evidence Act, is not artistically worded but it provides an exception to the prohibition imposed under the preceding sections. However, the extent of discovery admissible pursuant to the facts deposed by the accused depends only on the nature of the facts discovered to which the information precisely relates’.
Pulukuri Kotayya vs. King Emperor Privy Council (1946-47) 741A 65.
Sabir Khan and another vs. State of UP 1989 SC
Mohd. Rafiq Mohd. Rukmooddin Siddikki vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 Cri LJ 3180 (Bom)
All of the above
Pulukuri kotayya vs. king emperor privy council (1946-47) 74 1A 65
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses