Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.43 seconds)
Dilip Kumar Sah vs The Union Of India Through Dri, ... on 2 April, 2026 cites

Karnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 July, 2009

2. Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 887 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1013 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026 19/42 place of seizure "Muzaffarpur, Bihar". PW-2 admits it. Thus, it is evident that the actual place where truck was stopped and search was conducted has not been recorded by the seizing officer. As per the complainant (PW-2), 56 packets kept in 28 sacks were recovered from the truck and these packets were containing ganja. In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 has stated that at the time of seizure, no one else was there. He has stated that from the seized ganja, three samples of 50-50 gram were taken out and the samples were kept in a yellow colour plastic on which he, the two accused Lauki Rai and Dilip Kumar Sah and the two independent witnesses had put their signature. He has admitted in the cross-examination in paragraph '11' that he had opened two packets of ganja and had taken out the sample. It is, thus, evident from the deposition of the complainant (PW-2) that the samples were not taken from all the packets. In this regard, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the sampling was not done in accordance with the Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 dated 13th June, 1989 issued by the Anti-Smuggling Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, appears correct. Clause 2.2 of the Standing Order reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 484 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next