Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Sughar Singh And Anr. on 10 November, 1906

Babu Lal vs The State on 30 May, 1950

5. A great deal of argument was advanced for the proposition that an accused person should not be called upon to explain his possession of properties unless the theft was a recent one. I find it difficult to lay down any rule of law in this regard. The principal case cited on the subject Emperor v. Sughar Singh, 29 ALL. 138: (4 Cr. L. J. 436) is to my mind not an authority for the broad proposition which is advocated on behalf of the accused. A good deal depends on the circumstances of each case and it is obivious that where the nature of the property or the circumstances indicate that possession is not in the natural course of things but is incriminatory, the fact that a false explanation for possession is given by the accused renders the prosecution case stronger.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chhotey Lal vs Emperor on 28 August, 1924

5. Several cases have been referred to, and in my opinion, although every case has been decided on the peculiar facts of it, there seems to be a strong opinion against the raising of any presumption in favour of the prosecution where there has been a delay between the loss of the goods and the recovery, of them. I do not propose to discuss any of the cases except one, viz., Emperor v. Sughar Singh (1906) 29 All. 138. In that case the appellant was found in possession of certain ornaments of the ordinary typo and these were found six months after the dacoity by which they were lost, and it was held that no presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be raised to imply guilty knowledge. Their Lordships laid special stress on the word 'soon' to be found in illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1