Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)State Of Punjab vs Balkar Singh And Anr on 16 March, 2004
In State of
Punjab vs. Balkar Singh 2004 S.C.C. (Crl.) 838, the accused were found
present near 100 bags each containing 40 kgs poppy husk, at an open and
accessible place. They belonged to different villages. No investigation was
made as to whom those fields belonged. It was held by the Apex Court that
mere presence of the accused near the bags containing contraband, was
not sufficient to hold that they were in possession thereof. Ultimately the
State appeal against acquittal was dismissed. In the instant case also, as
stated above, the accused were allegedly found present near the bags
aforesaid. They belong to different villages. The facts of the aforesaid
cases are identical to the facts of the instant case. Relying on the
observations made in these cases, it can be held that the accused were not
found in conscious possession of the contraband. The submission of the
Counsel for the appellants, to the effect that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove that the accused were found in conscious possession of the
contraband, and as such, they did not commit any offence punishable
under Section 15 of the Act, carry substance and stands accepted.
Jagdish vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2001
Not only this, in Jagdish Vs. State of M.P. 2003 (9) S.C.C. 139, a
case decided by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, the conviction of
the appellant was set aside, as the independent witness, did not support
the case of the prosecution. On account of non-corroboration of the
evidence of the official witnesses, through the evidence of Didar Singh,
PW4, independent witness, the case of the prosecution become highly
doubtful. The trial Court failed to take into consideration this aspect of the
case, as a result whereof, it fell into a gave error, in recording conviction,
and awarding sentence, to the accused. The submission of the Counsel for
the appellants, in this regard carries substance and stands accepted.
Parminder Mohan vs State Of Haryana on 16 July, 2007
In Parminder Singh V. State of Haryana 2006
(4) R.C.R(Criminal) 495 , the accused was found standing near the car in
which the opium was lying at an open and accessible place. On seeing the
police party, he ran away. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this Court, held
Criminal Appeal No.642-SB of 2001 7
that the mere fact that Parminder Singh was standing near the car did not
mean that he was in possession of the opium lying therein.
Section 35 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1