Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Kalekhan vs State Of M.P. on 31 August, 1989

Kalu Sahebrao Mohite vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2020

14. The judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Kalekhan vs. State of MP4 dealt with the case where the accused was the owner of the case in which opium was found and it was held that this itself may not be sufficient to sustain a charge under Section 25 of the NDPS Act unless it is established that he had not only permitted the car to be used in commission of offence.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Natibabu Khadka vs State Of Goa, As Represented By The Anti ... on 13 July, 1995

In Kalekhan v. State of M.P. and Dinesh v. Union of India, 1990 Cri.L.J. 1119, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the driver of vehicle could not be convicted under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for the alleged offence of possession or transportation of opium unless the 'corpus' as well as 'animus' both were proved. The Court held that it was conscious possession which was contemplated by penal statute which provided and penalised possession of any contraband article or thing. In this case it was further observed by the Court as under:---
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - T K Das - Full Document

Om Prakash vs State on 13 April, 2009

In the case of Kalekhan (supra), where opium was recovered from the vehicle which was driven by the appellant, but it was found that driver was not having conscious possession of the contraband and thus it was held that he cannot be convicted unless it is found that he was having knowledge of it. In the case of Balbir Singh (supra), where the owner was held responsible under section 25 of the Act and he was held guilty on the basis of presumption of being the owner of the vehicle, but it was observed that presumption of culpable mental state referred to sections 36, 54 and 60 (3) of the Act, cannot be pressed into service.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M L Mohta - Full Document

Koshalyabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2016

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no conscious possession on the part of the present applicant as it cannot be assumed that she was knowing the fact that contraband was also being transported by the same vehicle and for this, counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab vs. Balkar Singh; 2004(2) EFR 9 in which the persons arrested were found sitting on the gunny bags, in which contraband was kept and subsequently seized and in case of Ritesh Chakarvarti vs. State of M.P.; (2006) 12 SCC 321 and in case of Kalekhan vs. State of M.P.; passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.393 and 201 of 1988 and reported in 1990 Cri.L.J. 1119. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that quantity seized is a commercial quantity and, at this stage, no inference can be drawn whether the present applicant had knowledge of the fact that the contraband was being transported in the vehicle.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1