Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.44 seconds)Section 19 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chandan Lal on 14 December, 1954
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chandan Lal, AIR 1955 Him-P 26 (E), following Koti Darbar v. Ram Chand, AIR 1949 Him-P 15 (P), Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 122 (G), Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15 (H) and Pran Das v. State, AIR 1954 SC 36 (I), I had pointed out that:
Koti Darbar vs Ram Chand on 11 July, 1949
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chandan Lal, AIR 1955 Him-P 26 (E), following Koti Darbar v. Ram Chand, AIR 1949 Him-P 15 (P), Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 122 (G), Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15 (H) and Pran Das v. State, AIR 1954 SC 36 (I), I had pointed out that:
Cyril C. Baker vs Emperor on 2 July, 1930
"Possession implies knowledge, and there would be no possession when there is no knowledge on the part of the ostensible occupant of the cabin or room as the case may be. Possession without knowledge can hardly have been meant since in that case the element of criminal intention or knowledge would be entirely wanting."
Section 8 in The Opium Act, 1878 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 417 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Muthu Reddi And Anr. vs Emperor on 14 March, 1930
8. Mr. Malhotra for the respondent also invited my attention to Venkatasubba Reddi v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Mad 689 (C), where a Division Bench of that High Court indicated that:
Bansi Lal And Ors. vs Mohi Ram And Ors. on 16 August, 1954
5. The learned Government Advocate invited my attention to an earlier ruling of this Court, reported in Bansi Lal v. Mohi Ram, AIR 1955 Him-P 2 (A), where I had pointed out that:
1