Back
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Mander Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Muktsar.
2. The instant FIR came to be registered on 30.11.1996. The accused-appellant came to be convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2004. The present appeal against the conviction was filed on 18.02.2005. The matter has come up for final hearing now after more than 28 years of the registration of the FIR.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.11.1996 SHO Kirpal Singh, Police Station, Lambi alongwith ASI Gurdip Singh, HC Chander Mohan, LC Gurmej Singh, LC Gurjant Singh, C. Bhajan Singh, SPO Sukhdev Singh, PHGs Buta Singh, Santokh Singh, Shinderpal Singh, C. Bhupinder Singh and SPO Khushkaran Singh gunman on a Govt. Canter bearing No.PB-04B-9568 which was being driven by C.Amar Nath, under the leadership of Baljit Singh Buttar DSP (HQ), Muktsar, were going to villages Lohara, Ghumiara etc. in connection with patrol duty and for checking the hiding places of terrorists. When the police party reached Bus Stand Ghumiara, Ranga Singh son of Kapoor Singh, Ex-panch was joined i
Conscious possession must be established by prosecution in narcotics cases, shifting burden to the accused to explain possession; minor discrepancies do not negate the prosecution’s case.
(1) Presumption from possession of illicit articles – Unless and until contrary is proved in trial of cases involving offences coming within purview of NDPS Act, it may be presumed that accused has c....
The mandatory nature of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is upheld, ensuring strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related offenses, while presuming culpable mental state based on posse....
Point of law: While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Apex Court has, however, reiterated that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degre....
The recovery of contraband from a public place does not require compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 places the burden of proof on ....
Conscious possession must be established for conviction under the NDPS Act; mere proximity to contraband is insufficient.
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions, credibility of witness testimonies, and conscious possession of contraband in upholding the conviction and sentence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'conscious possession' and the significance of animus or intent in establishing possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
