Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Surender Kumar & Anr. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 1 September, 2015
14. This Court has in several cases held that unconscious
possession would not attract the rigours of the said Act. [See:
Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Singh v. The State (GNCT of
Delhi) &Anr.: W.P. (Crl) 2143/2019 decided on 27.09.2019;
Arun Chaudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 January, 2021
Aruna Chaudhary v. State &Ors.: W.P. (Crl.)
Parmdeep Singh Sran vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 18 January, 2019
1975/2019 decided
on 25.09.2019 and Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The State (NCT of
Delhi) W.P.: (Crl) 152/2019 decided on 29.08.2019)]."
Gunwantlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 1972
In support, the counsel has relied upon the Supreme Court
judgment of Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [AIR 1972 SC
1756] and a judgment of this court in Sonam Chaudhary and Ors. v.
The State, [Crl. M.C. 471/2015 dated 06.01.2016] wherein it has been
held that possession requires a 'mental element' and therefore, it should
be a 'conscious possession'.
Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 21 March, 2013
In Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II), Crimes
1994 (3) 344 (SC) the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
Section 5 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Mitali Singh vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2020
9. While deciding a similar matter titled 'Mitali Singh v. NCT of Delhi &
Anr., decided 15.12.2020, W.P.(CRL) No. 2095/2020, this court made
the following observation:
Adhiraj Singh Yadav vs State on 31 December, 2020
In Adhiraj Singh Yadav Vs. State, decided on 31.12.2020 in
W.P.(CRL) 754/2020, this Court held that:
1