Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Mohd. Yasin vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 1997 cites

M. Mammutti vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 1979

In anotherdecision reported in 1980 SCC (Cri) 17 : (AIR 1979 SC 1705) (M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka), it was held that presumption of knowledge from mere possession can only be drawn if the notes were apparently counterfeit. In the instant case it was not so. After receiving the counterfeit note P.W. 3 had suspicion. He went to P.W. 2 for confirmation and to get further confirmation they visited the shop of P.W. 4. From these facts it is apparent that the counterfeiting exercise was so skilful that P.W. 3 could not be sure of it and had to run to two persons to get confirmation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 95 - S M Ali - Full Document

Madan Lal Sarma vs The State on 13 September, 1989

7. There arc other circumstances too. Learned counsel has pointed out the conduct of the accused which is most relevant to assertion if he had knowledge of it or not. Mere possession of the counterfeit note is not punishable under the law. It must be conscious possession. The accused must have possessed it knowingly that it was forged or counterfeit note. If the accused Appel late had knowledge of the same he would have tried to flee away from the place. But the evidence is that he was all along standing at the medical store till he was apprehended by P.W. 5 the constable. Reliance has been placed in the case of Madan Lal Sharma v. State, 1990 Cri LJ 215, wherein it has been held at page 216:
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1