Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.74 seconds)
State vs C.Vijayan (A.5) on 12 July, 2002 cites

Ramaswami Gounden vs King Emperor on 17 November, 1903

In support of his contention, the counsel relied upon a decision reported in Ramaswami v. Emperor (1946 M.W.N. (Crl.) 136). But the witnesses who were examined to prove the recovery of medicines from A.7's house turned hostile. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the seizure of medicines from the house of A.7. Further, there is no evidence to prove that these medicines alleged to have been found in A.7's house were stolen goods and therefore, he cannot be convicted under Section 41 1 also. Therefore, the conviction of A.7 is to be set aside. Further, A.14 who pointed out A.7 has been acquitted. Therefore, the counsel argued that in the absence of any evidence except the recovery, it cannot be said that A.7 was proved to be in exclusive possession of the medicines, nor that he was in possession of stolen properties.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 Next