Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 309 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Megh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 September, 2003

Arun Kumar vs Of on 21 October, 2016

10. This position in law is settled by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Punjab v Baldev singh, AIR 1999 SC 2378 and in Megh Singh v State of Punjab, 2003 8 SCC 666, where application of Section 50 is only in case of search of a person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicles or articles. But in cases where the line of separation is thin and fine between search of a person and an artificial object, the test of inextricable connection is to be applied and then conclusion is to be reached as to whether the search was that of a person or not.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jeet Ram vs Of on 5 December, 2023

"24. So far as the judgment in Avtar Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 419: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1769] is concerned, it has been considered by this Court in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab [(2003) 8 SCC 666: 2004 SCC (Cri) 58]. The Court held that the circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It is more pronounced in criminal cases where the backbone of adjudication is fact-based."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rekha Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 January, 2024

"24. So far as the judgment in Avtar Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 419: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1769] is concerned, it has been considered by this Court in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab [(2003) 8 SCC 666: 2004 SCC (Cri) 58]. The Court held that the circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case of depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It is more pronounced in criminal cases where the rt backbone of adjudication is fact-based."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sukhlal S/O Ditya Bhil vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 October, 2007

12. Then, under the circumstances it would be profitable to refer to the case of Megh Singh (supra) whereby the Apex Court has held that requirement of Sections 55, 20, 54 & 35 of the Act was that the possession must be conscious possession. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. In order to make the possession illicit, there must be conscious possession. "The expression 'possession' is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, to work out a completely logical and precise definition of 'possession' uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. Possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandesh Chand Dogra vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 November, 2023

"24. So far as the judgment in Avtar Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 419: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1769] is concerned, it has been considered by this Court in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab [(2003) 8 SCC 666: 2004 SCC (Cri) 58]. The Court held that the circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It is more pronounced in criminal cases where the backbone of adjudication is fact-based."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of H.P vs Surender Kumar on 22 May, 2017

10. This position in law is settled by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Punjab v Baldev singh, AIR 1999 SC 2378 and in Megh Singh v State of Punjab, 2003 8 SCC 666, where application of Section 50 is only in case of search of a person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicles or articles. But in cases where the line of separation is thin and fine between search of a person and an artificial object, the test of inextricable connection is to be applied and then conclusion is to be reached as to whether the search was that of a person or not.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Santosh Patra & Others vs State Of Orissa on 10 November, 2014

17. From reading of the aforesaid cases reveals that in the case of Madanlal and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) four persons were traveling in a car together, in the case of Megh Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) three persons were found sitting on gunny bags and in the case of State of Hariyana v. Jarnail Singh and others (supra) three persons were sitting in the cabin of the tanker and the 4 th man was driving the vehicle. From the middle chamber of that tanker 73 gunny bags containing poppy husk were recovered and in all the three cases it was held that the recovery of the contraband were from the conscious possession of the accused persons.
Orissa High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - S K Mishra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next