Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Assam And Ors. vs Satyanarayan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 February, 1987

Pilli Dilli Dora vs State Of Orissa on 15 July, 1994

In this connection, he placed reliance on decisions of this Court in State v. Satyanarayan,(1965)31 Cut LT F72 : (1965(2)Cri LJ 112), Radheshyam v. State, (1984) 58 Cut LT 388 and State of Orissa v. Lokanath Sahu, 1986 (1) Orissa LR 576. P.W. 3 in his evidence stated that the seized article was in powder form and after examining the same by burning and smelling, he could know that it was ganja. He also claimed that he had six years of experience in the department and had undergone special training in identification of ganja. The question that arises for consideration is whether in absence of any chemical examination, merely on the basis of the oral statement, the seized article can be held to be ganja. Section 2(iii) defines cannabis (hemp) to mean :
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Prakash Chandra Agrawal vs State Of Orissa & Others ...... Opp. ... on 3 March, 2012

Further, in the case of State of Assam (supra), a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court headed by the then Acting Chief Justice came to a conclusion in paragraph-4 thereof that where an applicant makes an application for license and the same has been recommended and remains pending consideration, he could not be held that the accused had any mens-rea in this respect. In the aforesaid case, it was an admitted fact that the respondents had no license on the date of seizure but application along with necessary recommendation of the Supply Officer to grant license were pending before the licensing authority. Therefore, for prosecution under Section 6-A and effecting confiscation of the materials seized, it was mandatory that mens-rea against the accused must be established in order to sustain confiscation as valid.
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - I Mahanty - Full Document

Amar Singh vs . State Of Rajasthan on 29 January, 2015

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and was posted as the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangaria. He was seized of the trial of Sessions Case No.25/09 titled as State Vs. Satyanarayan & Ors. A bail application preferred by the accused Satyanarayan under Section 439 Cr.P.C. came to be accepted vide order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the petitioner being the Presiding Officer of the said court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Mehta - Full Document
1