Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 52A in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
T.P. Razak Alias Nagappan Razak vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 1995
State of Punjab v. Balhirsingh (AIR 1994 SC 1872)
State of Punjab v. Jasbirsingh and Ors., [1996 (1) EFR 224J
Saiyad Mohd. and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [1995 (2) Crimes 132]
R.P. Eazak alias Nagappan Razak v. State of Kerala, [1996 (2) EFR 80]
K. Mohanan v. State of Kerala [2000 SCC (Cr.) 1228].
K.N.Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 1993
It is pertinent to note here that in both these judgments (K. Mohanan's case and Joseph Fernandez's case) the Supreme Court has considered the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench.
Joseph Fernandes vs State Of Goa on 19 August, 1995
In the light of the judgment passed in Joseph Fernandez's case (supra) this Court is of the firm view that substantial compliance of Section 50 of the Act, has been done in the present case. On the basis of the statements of Station House Officer Anil Singh (P.W. 5) and other witnesses as also the document (Ex. P-2), no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. Therefore, they are not entitled to get any benefit in that behalf.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Om Prakash Baldev Krishan on 23 August, 1988
18. This Court has gone through the judgment of Constitutional Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1990) 4 SCC 892]. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion, whether the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, in the judgment Para 43, the Supreme Court has held that:--
Section 8 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Paramjit Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 19 July, 2002
14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has heavily placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, reported in [1997 (1) Crimes 247]. According to this judgment, the offer of search to be given individually to the accused persons. There is no dispute in this proposition. But, in the present case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this judgment is not helpful to the appellant because, both the appellants were given offer separately and the appellant No. 2 Dulcsingh had given his consent in his own hand-writing whereas the appellant No. 1 Kalusingh could not give his consent in writing because he was not knowing to write, but at the same time, as he was knowing to put his signature, he did so on the Panchnama and all these facts are duly recorded in the Panchnama.