Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)

Sarvothaman Guhan @Sarvo vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 13 September, 2023

3.8 Moreover, there is a material discrepancy in the weight of the contraband allegedly recovered from the Applicant. As per the application under Section 52A filed by the NCB, the quantity of recovered contraband was indicated as 3.5 grams, however, in the order dated 24th July, 2023 passed on the said application, the total weight of the seized contraband has been noted by the Trial Court as 2.5 grams. This inconsistency casts serious doubts on the reliability of the said recovery. Reliance is placed on Sarvothaman Guhan v. Narcotics Control Bureau7 and Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi v. State of Goa8.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs State Of Goa on 3 November, 2004

3.8 Moreover, there is a material discrepancy in the weight of the contraband allegedly recovered from the Applicant. As per the application under Section 52A filed by the NCB, the quantity of recovered contraband was indicated as 3.5 grams, however, in the order dated 24th July, 2023 passed on the said application, the total weight of the seized contraband has been noted by the Trial Court as 2.5 grams. This inconsistency casts serious doubts on the reliability of the said recovery. Reliance is placed on Sarvothaman Guhan v. Narcotics Control Bureau7 and Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi v. State of Goa8.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 632 - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 2015

In Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan13, the Supreme Court held that 'conscious possession' entails not only physical custody of the contraband but also the presence of animus, i.e., knowledge of and intention to exercise control or dominion over the substance. Accordingly, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused had personal knowledge of the existence of the contraband and had the intent to maintain control over it.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 165 - D Misra - Full Document

Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2020

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 12 Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 122 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 591/2025 Page 13 of 15 By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:21.07.2025 19:12:56 accused or trafficking network. In the absence of such corroboration, and given the settled position that confessions under Section 67 are insufficient without supporting evidence, this Court is of the view that the benefit of doubt ought to enure to the Applicant at this stage. Accordingly, for the limited purpose of bail, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence alleged. The first limb of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is therefore satisfied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 360 - Cited by 1439 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next