Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 28 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Madan Lal And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2003
58. While, dealing with the concept of 'conscious
possession' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Madan Lal & Another Vs State of H.P. : (2003) 7 SCC 465
has held as under:-
Dharampal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2010
59. Further, the Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of
Dharampal Singh Vs State of Punjab : 2010 (10) SCALE has
also held as under:-
Section 23 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar Karwal vs Union Of India And Ors.Withkirpal Mohan ... on 21 March, 1990
49. Again, if the accused subsequently retracts
from such a statement, then the court has to look into
the entirety of the facts and circumstances leading to
the making of the above statement and its subsequent
retraction, so as to form an opinion regarding the
voluntariness of such a statement and the effect which
has to be given to his subsequent retraction thereof.
However, it is also well settled that such a retracted
statement is a weak piece of evidence and the court
should not proceed to base a finding of conviction on the
basis of such a retracted statement, unless there is some
other independent evidence to corroborate the same.
Reference with regard to the above can be made to some of
the judgments in cases Raj Kumar Karwal Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 409; Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of
India 2008 (1) AD (Crl.)