Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ghuran Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 18 January, 1971
8. In this context, I have examined whether there
is any evidence to prove the possession of the house. PW6
conducted investigation and laid charge before Court. He
Crl.. Appeal No.1847/2004 10
obtained a certificate from PW7 to prove the possession of
the house. PW5, Taluk Supply Officer deposed that he
received Ext.P6 document at the time of issuing ration card
and as per Ext.P6, one Purushothaman is the head of the
family and Sarasamma is his wife. Even though Ext.P6 was
produced before Court, that itself is not sufficient to prove
the possession of the house. The Secretary of the
Chettikulangara Grama Panchayat (PW7) issued Ext.P7
certificate and as per Ext.P7, the owner of the house is one
Purushothaman but he is not an accused in this case. Apex
Court in Ghuran Yadav v. State of Bihar [AIR 1971 SC 1641]
held as follows:
Section 18 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Mohanlal Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 2018
9. It is the primary responsibility of the
prosecution to prove the possession or ownership of the
house from where MO1 to MO5 were seized. Apex Court in
Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan [2015(5) SCALE 330], while
discussing the provisions of the NDPS Act, held as follows:
1