Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Ranbir Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 21 March, 1995
A perusal of the above spells out that no specific question has
been put to the appellant-accused with regard to the conscious possession
of 30 Kgs. poppy husk recovered calling upon him to explain the
circumstances, which gave rise to presumption to be drawn against him
under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. For conscious possession, the
minimum requirement to be specified is the custody and control over the
goods in question. Merely because the bag containing poppy husk was
lying beside the accused, does not mean that he was in possession of the
said bag specially when no question to that effect has been put to the
Crl. Appeal No. 2207-SB of 2008 11
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This is a serious lacuna in the case of
the prosecution, which would entitle the appellant to be acquitted as the
conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained. The judgments
relied upon by the counsel for the appellant i.e. Ranvir Yadav vs. State of
Bihar (supra), Raj Kumar vs. State of Punjab (supra), Hari Singh vs.
State of Punjab (supra) and Somnath etc.
Firm Of M/S. Peare Lal Hari Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Another on 7 April, 1958
Further reliance has been placed on a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. State of
Punjab, 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 70 and Single Bench judgments of this
Court in Hari Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 738
and Somnath etc. vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 707. He
has thereafter taken me through the questions put to the appellant-accused
by the trial Court while examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he,
on the basis of those questions, contends that the appellant deserves
acquittal.
Supra Enterprises vs Punjab State Electricity Board And Anr. on 20 February, 2006
A perusal of the above spells out that no specific question has
been put to the appellant-accused with regard to the conscious possession
of 30 Kgs. poppy husk recovered calling upon him to explain the
circumstances, which gave rise to presumption to be drawn against him
under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. For conscious possession, the
minimum requirement to be specified is the custody and control over the
goods in question. Merely because the bag containing poppy husk was
lying beside the accused, does not mean that he was in possession of the
said bag specially when no question to that effect has been put to the
Crl. Appeal No. 2207-SB of 2008 11
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This is a serious lacuna in the case of
the prosecution, which would entitle the appellant to be acquitted as the
conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained. The judgments
relied upon by the counsel for the appellant i.e. Ranvir Yadav vs. State of
Bihar (supra), Raj Kumar vs. State of Punjab (supra), Hari Singh vs.
State of Punjab (supra) and Somnath etc.
Section 15 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Raj Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 11 January, 1995
vs. State of Punjab (supra)
leave no manner of doubt that the conviction of the appellant, in the
present case, cannot be sustained and, therefore, the appeal deserves to
be allowed.
1