Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.53 seconds)
Case No. Sc/9512/2016 Ncb vs . Micheal Webuda Dated: 24.03.2021 Page ... on 24 March, 2021 cites

Bhola Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 7 September, 1993

In Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab[18], the Court, after referring to the pronouncement in Noor Aga (supra), concurred with the observation that only after the prosecution has discharged the initial burden to prove the foundational facts, then only Section 35 would come into play. While dislodging the conviction, the Court stated:­ " .... it is apparent that the initial burden to prove that the appellant had the knowledge that the vehicle he owned was being used for transporting narcotics still lay on the prosecution, as would be clear from the word "knowingly", and it was only after the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had the knowledge would the presumption under Section 35 arise. Section 35 also presupposes that the culpable mental state of an accused has to be proved as a fact beyond [pic]reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probabilities. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any evidence with regard to the mental state of the appellant no presumption under Section 35 can be drawn. The only evidence which the prosecution seeks to rely on is the appellant's conduct in giving his residential address in Rajasthan although he was a resident of Fatehabad in Haryana while registering the offending truck cannot by any stretch of imagination fasten him with the knowledge of its misuse by the driver and others."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 135 - G N Ray - Full Document

Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2006

In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab[20] and Sorabkhan Case No. SC/9512/2016 NCB Vs. Micheal Webuda Dated: 24.03.2021 Page No. 21 of 24 Gandhkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat[21]. The Court, repelling the argument, opined thus:­ "12. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel. The appellant Dharampal Singh was found driving the car whereas [pic]appellant Major Singh was travelling with him and from the dicky of the car 65 kg of opium was recovered. The vehicle driven by the appellant Dharampal Singh and occupied by the appellant Major Singh is not a public transport vehicle. It is trite that to bring the offence within the mischief of Section 18 of the Act possession has to be conscious possession. The initial burden of proof of possession lies on the prosecution and once it is discharged legal burden would shift on the accused. Standard of proof expected from the prosecution is to prove possession beyond all reasonable doubt but what is required to prove innocence by the accused would be preponderance of probability. Once the plea of the accused is found probable, discharge of initial burden by the prosecution will not nail him with offence. Offences under the Act being more serious in nature higher degree of proof is required to convict an accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 189 - B P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next