Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.83 seconds)Section 35 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Narinder Singh @ Ninder vs State Of Punjab on 2 December, 2008
In Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs.
State of Punjab 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 343, which was a case,
relating to the recovery of 4 Kgs. of opium, the samples were sent to
the office of the Chemical Examiner, after 23 days. All the samples
were intact.
State Of Orissa vs Kanduri Sahoo on 4 December, 2003
In State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo, 2004(1), RCR
(Criminal), 196 (S.C.), it was held that mere delay in sending the
sample to the Laboratory is not fatal, where there is evidence that the
seized articles remained in safe custody. It was held, in the aforesaid
cases, that in the face of the other cogent, convincing, reliable, and
trustworthy evidence produced by the prosecution, to prove the
completion of link evidence, it could not be held that the possibility of
tampering with the samples, could not be ruled out. The principle of
law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of
the instant case. Therefore, in the instant case, unexplained delay of 04
days, in sending the samples, to the office of the Chemical Examiner,
Criminal Appeal No. 2467-SB of 2008 12
did not cast any doubt, on the prosecution story. In this view of the
matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without
merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Madan Lal And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2003
The facts of Madan Lal's case (supra) are almost
similar and identical to the facts of the present case. The principle of
law, laid down, in Madan Lal's and Megh Singh's cases (supra) is
fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, in
their statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/appellants,
took up the plea of false implication. As stated above, the accused
miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above.
Thus, their conscious possession, in respect of the contraband, was
proved, and, as such, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants,
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Megh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 September, 2003
In Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 319, on 22.2.1993, three persons were found sitting, on the
gunny bags, containing poppy husk. The appellant was arrested, while
the other two fled. 25 bags containing poppy husk, were found, at the
Criminal Appeal No. 2467-SB of 2008 16
spot, which were seized. The appellant was convicted and sentenced
by the trial Court, and the appeal filed by him, was also dismissed by
the High Court. The Apex Court, upheld the conviction and sentence
of the appellant, observing that he was in conscious possession. The
word 'conscious' means awareness about a particular fact. It is the
state of mind, which is deliberate or intended. It was further held that
possession, in a given case, need not be physical possession, but can be
constructive, having power and control over the article, while the
person whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that
power or control.
Section 293 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964
In Masalti Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1965 (S.C.) 202, it was held that it is, undoubtedly, the
duty of the prosecution to lay before the Court, all material witnesses,
Criminal Appeal No. 2467-SB of 2008 9
available to it, whose evidence is necessary for unfolding its case, but it
would be unsound to lay down it, as a general rule, that every witness,
must be examined, even though his evidence, may not be very material,
or even if, it is known that he/she has been won over or terrorized.