Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 489C in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M. Mammutti vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 1979
3. M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka [1979 (4) Supreme Court Cases 723]. This case has been referred in support of the argument that the appellants were not specifically asked about their knowledge whether recovered currency notes were fake or not.
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
"36. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
Rayab Jusab Sama vs State Of Gujarat on 3 August, 1998
In the case of Rayab Jusab Sama Vs. State of Gujarat [1999 Cri. L. J. 942] the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has held the possession of large number of fake currency notes to be a case of active transportation of such notes. The observation made by the Division Bench in that case also substantiates the view formed by us. Para-10 of the report reads as under: