Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Ghuran Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 18 January, 1971

Remgul Alias Remulal And Anr. vs State Of M.P. on 22 October, 2002

8. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Churan Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1641 and Mohammad Klam Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr., E.F.R. (II) 213, Mst Phoolkunwarbai and Anr. v. State of M.P., 1994 EFR (I) 600 and State of M.P. v. Faz Mohammad, 1978 JLJ S. No. 2 (DB). All these authorities are unequivocally say that the prosecution has to establish by adducing satisfactory evidence that the house belonged to and was in possession of the appellant, and the contraband article was in his conscious possession. In the view of this Court, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in this regard in its proper perspective. There is no satisfactory evidence available on record to hold that the house was owned and was in possession of the appellant No. 1 and the alleged contraband article (Smack) was seized from his conscious possession.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sunderlal And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2006

In the lack of the evidence regarding exclusive possession of the appellants over the alleged house the testimony of K.M. Chourasiya (P.W.2), Excise Sub-inspector does not help to the prosecution in any manner and conviction could not be sustained on its testimony or seizure as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ghurun Yadav v. State of Bihar in which it is held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - U C Maheshwari - Full Document

Mukesh Kaur vs The State on 24 March, 2014

It has been submitted by the appellant that the impugned judgment and sentence have been imposed by the ld. Trial Court mechanically without due application of mind and that the evidence has not been appreciated; that no evidence has been led by the State to establish that the House No. 585, Four Storey, Vishal Enclave, Delhi was in the exclusive possession of the appellant nor had it been proved that she was the sole owner of the same; and that there was no evidence on the record to connect the accused with the premises from where the contraband was found and in relation thereto, reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Mohd. Alam Khan vs. Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr., I (1196) CR 190 (SC) and in the case Guran Yadav vs. State, AIR 1971 SC 1641.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rameshwar vs The State Of M.P. on 20 February, 2018

8. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Churan Yadav v. State of Bihar : AIR 1971 SC 1641 and Mohammad Klam Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr., E.F.R. (II) 213, Mst Phoolkunwarbai and Anr. v. State of M.P. 1994 EFR (I) 600 and State of M.P. v. Faz Mohammad 1978 JLJ 2 (DB). All these authorities are unequivocally say that the prosecution has to establish by adducing satisfactory evidence that the house belonged to and was in possession of the appellant, and the contraband article was in his conscious possession. In the view of this Court, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in this regard in its proper perspective. There is no satisfactory evidence available on record to hold that the house was owned and was in possession of the appellant No. 1 and the alleged contraband article (Smack) was seized from his conscious possession."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramcharan vs The State Of M.P on 9 May, 2012

8. Apart the above, the Investigating Officer Shri M.S. Sikarwar, (PW-7) deposed that in pursuance to the aforesaid memorandum of the applicant, the alleged recovery of currency was made from the house of the applicant but through any document he could not prove that the house from which the alleged currency and documents were recovered and seized was in exclusive possession of the applicant. The same has also not been proved by the other evidence available on record. In such premises, the inference could only be drawn that at the time of alleged recovery the applicant was in custody of the Police and such house was in possession of some other person and in such circumstances the alleged recovery could not be said to be at the instance of the applicant from his house. It is not the case of the prosecution that at the time of seizure, the alleged house was closed or locked and same was opened at the instance of the applicant. In such premises, exclusive possession of the applicant over such house could not be deemed and I am of the considered view that unless the exclusive possession of the applicant over the house, from where the alleged currency and documents were seized is proved by any admissible or documentary evidence, the alleged house could not be deemed to be the house of the applicant and in such premises, the applicant could not be connected with the alleged recovery. My aforesaid view is fully fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ghuran Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1971 SC 1641, in which it was held as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - U C Maheshwari - Full Document

Sarasamma vs The Excise Inspector Of Mavelikkara on 11 October, 2204

8. In this context, I have examined whether there is any evidence to prove the possession of the house. PW6 conducted investigation and laid charge before Court. He Crl.. Appeal No.1847/2004 10 obtained a certificate from PW7 to prove the possession of the house. PW5, Taluk Supply Officer deposed that he received Ext.P6 document at the time of issuing ration card and as per Ext.P6, one Purushothaman is the head of the family and Sarasamma is his wife. Even though Ext.P6 was produced before Court, that itself is not sufficient to prove the possession of the house. The Secretary of the Chettikulangara Grama Panchayat (PW7) issued Ext.P7 certificate and as per Ext.P7, the owner of the house is one Purushothaman but he is not an accused in this case. Apex Court in Ghuran Yadav v. State of Bihar [AIR 1971 SC 1641] held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thankamani vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 15 November, 2002

In the light of the above decision, I have examined whether there is any evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The occurrence was deposed by PW1, the Excise Inspector, Mattannur. His evidence shows that on 1.12.1995, he got information that the accused was manufacturing illicit arrack in her residence. He prepared a search memorandum and sent it to the Court, thereafter arrived at the house of the accused, conducted a search, during search, he seized 1.5 ml arrack and 30 litres of wash, for that he prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. After taking sample, he destroyed the wash at the place of occurrence. MO1 to MO6 Crl.R.P.No.986/2003 4 were taken into custody. The accused was released on bail. He also registered Ext.P2 crime and occurrence report. The arrack was send over to the chemical examination lab and obtained Ext.P3 chemical analysis report. Ext.P4 is the search list. PW2 supported the evidence of PW1, who identified signature in Ext.P1. He also identified MO1 to MO3. PW4 deposed that it was seized from a shed near the house of the accused. The independent witnesses residing near the house of the revision petitioner identified the revision petitioner. It is true that no documentary evidence has been adduced by PW1 to prove the possession of the house, but the evidence of independent witnesses and the excise officials show that MO1 to MO6 were seized from the house of the revision petitioner.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1