Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Avtar Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002
Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant submitted that
the facts of the case greatly resemblance with that of Avtar Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab (2002 (7) SCC 419). Since conscious possession
has not been proved, the conviction of the accused-appellant cannot be
stand on a different footing from those co-accused who have been
acquitted. Non-compliance with requirements of Section 50 of the Act
vitiates the conviction.
Section 20 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 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gunwantlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 1972
As noted in Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P. (AIR 1972 SC 1756)
possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be
constructive, having power and control over the article in case in
question, while the person whom physical possession is given holds it
subject to that power or control.
Madan Lal And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2003
Once possession is established the person who claims that it was
not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to
be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act
gives a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption
available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where
also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit
articles. This position was highlighted in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State
of Himachal Pradesh (2003 (6) SCALE 483).
Supdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs ... vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors on 23 August, 1979
The expression 'possession' is a polymorphous term which assumes
different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings
in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed
in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil
Kumar Bhunja and Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 52), to work out a completely logical
and precise definition of "possession" uniformally applicable to all
situations in the context of all statutes.
1