Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)
Fir No. 27/12; State vs . Chote Lal & Anr. Page 1 Of 17 on 25 July, 2013 cites

Madan Lal Sharma And Anr. vs State Of Assam on 9 February, 1999

In Madan Lal Sharma Vs. The State 1990 Crl.L.J. 215, it was held by the Hon'ble Kolkatta High Court that under section 489B IPC, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that at the (SIC) when the accused was passing the note he knew that it was a forged one. The mere possession of it by him does not shift the burden to the accused to prove his innocent possession of the forged note. FIR No. 27/12; State Vs. Chote Lal & Anr. Page 15 of 17 Similarly, u/s 489C, it is to be proved that the accused intended to use the forged or counterfeit currency note as genuine or it might be used as genuine. It is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances which would irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the accused had the intention to introduce surreptitiously the note on the public. Thus, knowledge or reason to believe that the note was forged has to be proved to fix the liability u/s 489B and 489C. Further, the prosecution has further failed to prove that the accused had requisite mens rea.
Gauhati High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - D Biswas - Full Document

Rabindranath Prusty vs State Of Orissa on 24 November, 1984

In Rabindranath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa 1984 CRI.L.J 1392, it was held that one of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person is that the searching officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused before searching the person of the accused. This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object which was brought out by the search.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1622 - Full Document
1   2 Next