Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Hans Raj S/O Goma Ram vs The State Of Haryana on 6 April, 2010 cites

Joginder Pal @ Gola Son Of Sh. Jit Ram vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2010

is involved, was aware of the fact that the said conveyance was being used, for the commission of an offence under the Act. The insertion of word 'knowingly' has, thus, been intentionally used by the Legislature. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients aforesaid, essentially required for the commission of offence under Section 25 of the Act. Under these circumstances, presumption under Sections 54 and 60(3) of the Act, could not be invoked. In the instant case, as stated above, since the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle, for the commission of an offence, under the Act, the mere fact that he was the owner of the same, without anything else, could not be sufficient to convict him, for the offence, under Section 25 of the Act. The trial Court was wrong, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence to the accused. Similar principle of law, laid down in Ram Pal's case (supra). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence rendered by the trial Court, being perverse, are liable to be set aside.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Nanak Chand vs The State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1955

Sections 535 and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (now Sections 460 and 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). The ratio of law, laid down, in Nanak Chand's case (supra) is fully applicable to this case. The trial Court failed to take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence to the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 104 - S J Imam - Full Document
1   2 Next