Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (2.49 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Section 5 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
William Michael Hurtubise vs State Of Odisha And Others .... .... ... on 17 January, 2014
26. The Orissa High Court in William Michael Hurtubise Vs. State
of Odisha and Ors. 117 (2014) CLT 303 applied the principles laid
down in the cases of Sanjay Dutt (supra) and Nurit Toker (supra) and
quashed the FIR by observing as under:
Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 21 March, 2013
"7. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
relying upon the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI,
Bombay, 1994 5 SCC 410, came to hold that merely
because the petitioner was found to be carrying two live
cartridges which were detected during screening of her
baggage at Mumbai International Airport, the same
cannot constitute conscious possession in order to
establish the guilt for commission of offences under
Sections 3 and 25 of the Act."
Jaswinder Singh vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 August, 2015
31. Recently, this Court in the case bearing Crl.M.C.No.4207/2104,
titled as 'Jaswinder Singh Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.',
decided on 11.08.2015, held that since the prosecution has failed to
prove that the possession was conscious possession and, therefore, on
the basis of mere possession of a live cartridge the proceedings cannot
continue qua the petitioner under the Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly,
while allowing the petition noted above, this Court quashed the FIR,
summoning order and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
Section 3 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gunwantlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 1972
This Court relied
upon Gunwant Lal (supra) and Sanjay Dutt (supra) as well as
Manueal R. Encarnacion Vs. State Through NCT of Delhi & Anr.,
Crl M.C. No.1455/2014 decided on 22.05.2014. Accordingly, the FIR,
charge sheet and all subsequent proceedings were quashed by observing
that it could not be proved that the petitioner was in conscious
possession and there was no reason to discard his stand.