Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.79 seconds)
Sukhlal S/O Ditya Bhil vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 October, 2007 cites

Megh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 September, 2003

12. Then, under the circumstances it would be profitable to refer to the case of Megh Singh (supra) whereby the Apex Court has held that requirement of Sections 55, 20, 54 & 35 of the Act was that the possession must be conscious possession. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. In order to make the possession illicit, there must be conscious possession. "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, to work out a completely logical and precise definition of 'possession' uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. Possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive".
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 238 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Gyan Chand And Anr. vs State And Anr. on 16 March, 2005

8. Relying on Gyan Chandra and Anr. v. State and Anr. 2005 Cri.L.J. 3228, Learned Counsel for the State has stated that the conviction followed since the evidence of prosecution witnesses was corroborated by the recovery as well as the other documents and when samples had been prepared and sent properly for analysis, it was found that the contents were contraband and psychotropic substances. The fact that the recovery of the contraband was from premises over which the accused/appellant was owner and in possession was also proved to the hilt from evidence available on record then conviction of the accused person was proper. Relying on spot map, learned Counsel has submitted that Ex-P/9 was never challenged by the accused/appellant and it was an admitted fact that the house belonged to accused Sukhlal. Besides Ex-P/9 has been proved by Patwari [PW-4] Mishrilal, who had categorically stated that Ex-P/7 in support had been prepared by him and also indicated that the house on Kamsan Khasara No. 37 belongs to accused/appellant Sukhlal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 23 - U Pandey - Full Document
1   2 Next