Get the address of Top Solicitor in Chandigarh High Court +919876616815

Offences under the Act being more serious in nature higher degree of proof is required to convict an accused. Having noted the approach in the aforesaid two cases, we may take note of the decision in Dharampal Singh v. “A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent no. It is trite that to bring the offence within the mischief of Section 18 of the Act possession has to be conscious possession. We find from the materials on record that the appellant in its letter dated 11. 2 being Complaint Case No.

This Court overruled that objection and held that there could be no objection to the matters brought to the notice of the Court by the affidavit of the Principal Secretary being taken into consideration Top Advocate in Chandigarh High Court order to ascertain whether there was any valid basis for treating the petitioners and their companies as a class by themselves. State of Punjab[20] and Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan v. 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.

Once the plea of the accused is found probable, discharge of initial burden by the prosecution will not nail him with offence. 2 on the ground of alleged malafide and as such an offence under sections 166/500 I. 12 of the Constitution and the dispute was not one between two sets of private individuals but between the petitioners on the one hand and the State and persons claiming under a law firm in chandigarh for resitution of conjugal rights made by the State on the other, Art. In the said case opium was found in the dicky of the car when the appellant was driving himself and the contention was canvassed that the said act would not establish conscious possession.

32 on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact. The Court, repelling the argument, opined thus:- “12. Such occasions will be rare indeed and such rare cases should not- in our opinion, be regarded as a cogent reason for refusing to entertain the petition under Art. 2 also indicates that the issues were with regard to the action of the bank officers against respondent no. If the petition and the affidavits in support thereof are not convincing and the court is not satisfied that the petitioner has established his fundamental right or any breach thereof, the Court may dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not discharged the onus that lay on him.

Since there was no response from the respondent, the appellant caused a legal notice on 07. The vehicle driven by the appellant Dharampal Singh and occupied by the appellant Major Singh is not a public transport vehicle. Both the sections are non cognizable and bailable and triable by Magistrate of First Class. For the foregoing reasons the 482 Petition deserves to be allowed and the Criminal Appeal law firm in Chandigarh complaint filed by the respondent no.

As we have already said, it is possible very often to decide questions of fact on affidavits. 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. The respondent having made it clear in its reply dated 04. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel in Chandigarh High Court.

370 of the Constitution the only other provisions of the Constitution which shall apply to the State of Jammu while the Second Schedule set out the Articles of the Constitution made applicable to the State together with the exceptions and modifications. The initial burden of proof of possession lies on the prosecution and once it is discharged legal burden would shift on the accused. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on Avtar Singh v.

2011 addressed to respondent expressed its desire to amicably resolve the dispute at the bilateral level. 2013 to the lawyer’s notice stating that it was not inclined to agree for a reference, the appellant had no other option except to move the High Court by filing an application under Section 11 of the Act. 2012 by invoking Clause 27 of the MoU for appointment of an Arbitrator and also suggested the name of a retired High Court Judge and sought for the concurrence of the respondent.

In the legal notice, the appellant specifically intimated that in the event of the respondent failing to express its concurrence for the appointment of the named Arbitrator, it will have no other option but to move the High Court under Section 11 of the Act. The court may, in some appropriate cases, be inclined to give an opportunity to the parties to establish their respective cases by filing further affidavits or by issuing a commission or even by setting the application down for trial -on evidence, as has often been done on the original sides of the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta, or by adopting some other appropriate procedure.

1058 of 2009 is liable to be quashed. State of Punja[19], when the Court was referring to the expression “possession” in the context of Section 18 of the NDPS Act. Clause (3) provides that, in addition to the provisions of Art. In the instant cases as the grievance of the petitioners was primarily against the impugned Act passed by the Madras Legislature, which was a State as defined by Art.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s