Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009

Leela Ram vs State Of Haryana, Air 1999 Sc 3717, on 8 March, 2010

In the case of STATE OF HARYANA vs SANDEEP KUMAR, 2009 CrLJ 3507 the accused persons were found sitting on the gunny bags containing poppy husk that was being transported in a vehicle (in contrast with the case of BALKAR SINGH where the bags of poppy husk were lying in open field) and a division bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once possession of the accused and their control over the contraband was proved by establishing that the same was being transported by the accused, the statutory presumption under Section 54&35 of the Act operated against them and it was for them to rebut the presumption by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ruled Out As Held In The Case Of Ramu vs State Of Punjab, on 14 October, 2009

29. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that since recovery of contraband was not from person of the accused Veena but from the bag carried by her, non compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act is of no significance. Similarly, non joining of public persons also would not vitiate the entire proceedings of raid and recovery. It was argued that mere delay in sending the samples to forensic labs is not fatal to prosecution, if the evidence on record SC No. 37/2000 Page 19 of 34 pages 20 reflects that samples were kept intact. As regards role of accused Raju, it was argued by the learned prosecutor citing the judgment in STATE OF HARYANA vs SANDEEP KUMAR, 2009 CrLJ 3507 SC that since accused Raju was found traveling together with accused Veena on a scooter which is not a public conveyance, culpable mental state of accused Raju has to be presumed since he failed to explain as to how the accused persons were traveling together.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Case Of Jawahar vs State, 2007 (4) Rcr (Crl) 336 on 30 October, 2009

In the case of STATE OF HARYANA vs SANDEEP KUMAR, 2009 CrLJ 3507, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where efforts were made by the investigating officer to join independent witnesses but none agreed, conduct of the investigating officer could not be said to be blemished since it is a matter of common experience that independent witnesses shun joining a search or seizure in order to avoid wrath of accused. It was held by the apex court that merely because independent witnesses could not be joined, that in itself would not be sufficient to disbelieve and distrust evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As such, I fail to agree with learned defence counsel that failure to join public witnesses is fatal to the present prosecution case.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next