Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)
Shikha Banyal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 December, 2021 cites

Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 21 March, 2013

"For prosecution under the Arms Act, it needs to be proved that the accused had the knowledge or consciousness of possession. "Possession", for the purposes of prosecution must mean possession with the requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness (refer to Gunwantlal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 1756; Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 365 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

17. The above discussion would ordinarily have resulted in this Court relegating the matter after answering the questions referred to - in the manner indicated above. However, having regard to the circumstances, all that remains to be seen is whether the petitioner's claim for quashing is merited. Having regard to the earlier conclusion recorded, as far as the facts of this case go, an on an application of the law declared by Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3967 that the charges can be framed only when there is "reasonable suspicion" or sufficient material of the alleged offender having committed the offence -which is entirely absent in the circumstances of the present case - the impugned FIR (FIR No.158/2014) and all proceeding emanating from it deserve to be and is, accordingly, quashed." (emphasis added)
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1190 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Golconda Linga Swamy And Anr on 27 July, 2004

17. The above discussion would ordinarily have resulted in this Court relegating the matter after answering the questions referred to - in the manner indicated above. However, having regard to the circumstances, all that remains to be seen is whether the petitioner's claim for quashing is merited. Having regard to the earlier conclusion recorded, as far as the facts of this case go, an on an application of the law declared by Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3967 that the charges can be framed only when there is "reasonable suspicion" or sufficient material of the alleged offender having committed the offence -which is entirely absent in the circumstances of the present case - the impugned FIR (FIR No.158/2014) and all proceeding emanating from it deserve to be and is, accordingly, quashed." (emphasis added)
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 292 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next