Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Ncb vs . Bhoop Singh Etc on 31 July, 2010 cites

Madan Lal And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2003

In the case of Madan Lal v. State of HP 2003 (3) JCC 1330 it was held that once possession is established, the person who claims that 25 NCB Vs. Bhoop Singh etc it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act is given a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption available in law and similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn for possession of illicit articles.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 645 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Eran Eliav vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 26 April, 2007

In the case of Eran Eliav V. State 2008 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 98 it was observed - Both abetment and criminal conspiracy are fiendishly difficult to establish by virtue of direct evidence, it can be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence which is of an impeccable nature. In this case the accused Bhoop Singh was apprehended with 500 grams of hashish. 375 grams of hashish was recovered from the conscious possession of Jogender in pursuant to the information given by Bhup Singh.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 15 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1