Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.80 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
The Delhi Prevention Of Defacement Of Property Act, 2007
Megha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1995
Upholding the
objection, relying on Megha Singh [Megha Singh v.
State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709 : 1997 SCC (Cri)
267] the accused was acquitted.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohan Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2018
4. The Apex Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627,
while dealing with the issue as to whether a Complainant and the IO in a
criminal prosecution can be the same person or not, has observed as under:-
State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991
In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [State of Bihar
v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 192] this Court has held as under: (SCC pp.
Noor Aga vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 9 July, 2008
15. The duty of the prosecution under the NDPS Act,
considering the reverse burden of proof, was noticed in
Noor Aga [Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16
SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] observing: (SCC p.
450, paras 58-59)
"58. ... An initial burden exists upon the prosecution
and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal
burden shift. Even then, the standard of proof
required for the accused to prove his innocence is
not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the
standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the
accused on the prosecution is "beyond all
reasonable doubt" but it is "preponderance of
probability" on the accused. If the prosecution fails
to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the
rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which
is possession of contraband by the accused cannot
be said to have been established.
The State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
18. The discussion in the present case may not be
understood as confined to the requirements of a fair
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA CRL.M.C. 4891/2024 Page 5 of 8
Signing Date:03.07.2024
11:13:50
investigation under the NDPS Act only carrying a
reverse burden of proof. Baldev Singh [State of
Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 1080] related to a prosecution under Section
165-A IPC. Nonetheless, it observed that if the
informant were to be made the investigating officer, it
was bound to reflect on the credibility of the
prosecution case.
State By Inspector Of Police(Tamil ... vs Rajangam on 30 April, 2009
Rajangam [State of T.N. v. Rajangam,
(2010) 15 SCC 369 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 714] was a
prosecution under the NDPS Act, an objection was
taken that PW 6 who apprehended the accused could
not have investigated the case.