Wundervölker, Monstrosität und Hässlichkeit im Mittelalter (German Edition)

Sue Bohlin offers a quiz covering Bible basics rather than trivia. That's because we're not reading and studying the Bible. Who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament? .. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and.

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Raw Act of Possession file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Raw Act of Possession book. Happy reading Raw Act of Possession Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Raw Act of Possession at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Raw Act of Possession Pocket Guide.

Although every buyer has paid at least 90 per cent of the price, only about of the 4, promised apartments have been delivered so far and the project is nearly four years behind schedule. The promised sports and leisure facilities amount to some workout equipment in one of the empty flats, a small swimming pool and some swings for kids on a brown patch of land.

About buyers have filed a case against the developer in a consumer court demanding the homes they paid for and fair compensation for the delay. But the slow pace of India's overburdened judicial system means they are still waiting. It was not until they had paid 95 percent of the purchase price that they discovered the company only had permission to build 12 storeys. They have taken the company to court, but are still having to repay the loan at Rs 20, a month as the case continues.

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram for latest news and live news updates. Budget : Find the latest news on ndtv. These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section of Cr. The Trial Court has acquitted co-accused Bhupendra Dubey, but no appeal has been filed challenging the acquittal of Bhupendra Dubey. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeals in short are that on , a team of Central Narcotics Bureau, Gwalior under the leadership of Keval Singh Sub-Inspector, went to A.

Road, and was carrying out routine checking of vehicles in front of Bobby Restaurant. At about in the morning, one bus of Vivek Travels came from Indore to Gwalior. The said bus was stopped. After giving them the introduction, Keval Singh along with other team members entered inside the bus. One person who was sitting on seat no. He disclosed his name Hansraj, son of Bhavanlal, resident of village Gangati, P. Cheepavadod, Distt. Bara Rajasthan. Hansraj opted for his search by a Gazetted officer, therefore, Shri D. Banerjee, Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau was called.

Hansraj was personally searched by Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau. On physical search, one polythene was found under his shirt. A light pink powder was found. Test was carried out on the spot with the help of kit and it was found that the powder was heroine. The contraband was weighed. Total weight of the contraband was gms. Two samples of 5 gms each were prepared. Hansraj was arrested. He was brought to the office of Commissioner, Central Narcotics Bureau. The F. The seized contraband was kept in Malkhana. The samples were sent to Govt. Opium and Alcholide Factory, Neemach.

On interrogation, he disclosed that he had brought the contraband to sell the same to co-accused Rajeev Verma, who is resident of Itawah. He also disclosed that if the premises of Rajeev Verma is searched, then more Heroine can be seized. Accordingly, under the leadership of D. Bhattacharya Inspector, a team was constituted. A team from Lucknow also reached there. At about 7 A. He was also apprised of the fact that he can give search either to the Executive Magistrate or Gazetted Officer also. Rajeev Verma, agreed to give the search to Mahavir Singh, Inspector.

The house of Rajeev Verma was searched, however, nothing was found. After entering inside the factory premises, they found one Almirah of iron on the right side of the entrance gate. The key of the said Almirah was not made available by Rajeev Verma. With the consent of Rajeev Verma, the lock of the said Almirah was broke open and light brown coloured powder was found, which was disclosed by Rajeev Verma as Heroine. The powder was tested on the spot with the help of testing kit and it was found to be Heroine.

The contraband was weighed and the total weight of the contraband was 1 kg. The contraband and the samples were sealed. Thereafter, one room which was situated on the left side of the entrance gate, was opened and certain chemicals, scale and weight, empty bottles, plastic tub etc. The co- accused Rajeev Verma was arrested, and his statement was recorded.


  1. Direct to Consumer Milk Sales Threaten Big Dairy.
  2. ACT Scoring Chart: Calculate Your Score | The Princeton Review.
  3. How To Make Him Love You (and marry you)!
  4. Drug Laws in Bali and the Rest of Indonesia;

In his statement, Rajeev Verma, disclosed that the appellant Aziz used to bring certain material for the preparation of Heroine. The investigating team came back to Gwalior and as per Section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , , a report was sent. The appellant Rajeev Verma in his statement disclosed that he was preparing Heroine with the help of appellant Aziz. On , the house of Abdul Aziz was searched, however, nothing objectionable was found. Telephone bills were found and were seized. The appellant Abdul Aziz made certain admissions and accordingly, he was also arrested and the jeep was seized.

Title 32: National Defense

The call details of the appellant Abdul Aziz were checked and it was found that he had talked to the co-accused Bhupendra and it was found that Bhupendra Dubey is also involved in the offence. The Maruti Car of Bhupendra Dubey was seized. Co-accused Arjun Singh Lalla was also found involved in the offence. The house of Arjun Singh and Bhupendra were searched, but nothing objectionable was found. The notices were sent under Section 67 of N. Act but they did not appear. Therefore, a complaint was filed against all the accused persons, including the appellants Abdul Aziz and Rajeev Verma.

Co-accused Hansraj absconded during the pendency of the Trial and Perpetual Arrest warrant was issued. It appears that subsequently he was arrested and was convicted by judgment and sentence dated He had also filed a Criminal Appeal No. However, it appears that since, the co-accused Hansraj had already undergone the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, and was only undergoing the default jail sentence, therefore, the counsel for the appellant Hansraj did not press the appeal on merits.

It is not out of place to mention here that the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court was raised by the appellant Rajeev Verma, which was rejected by Trial Court order dated The appellant Rajeev Verma filed criminal revision No. The Criminal Revision No. The prosecution examined Usman P. Prajapati P. The appellants Abdul Aziz D. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals. So far as the appellant Rajeev Verma is concerned, there is nothing on record that he was in exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband.

He was working as Secretary of Arunodaya Khadi Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan but he had already submitted his resignation prior to the incident and therefore, he is not responsible for the seizure of the contraband from the factory premises. It is further submitted that Section 42 2 of N. Act, has not been complied with therefore, the prosecution stands vitiated. It is further submitted that there is no entry in the Malkhana registry pointing out that the seized article was sent to the Court.

Stimulants Control Act

Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent, that the statement of an accused recorded under Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , is admissible and would not be hit by Sections 25 , 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant Abdul Aziz.

So far as the appellant Rajeev Verma is concerned, it is submitted that since, the appellant Rajeev Verma was the Secretary, therefore, he was the custodian of the Almirah. At the time of search also, he never disclosed that he has already submitted his resignation. He also never disclosed that he is not the custodian of the keys of the Almirah. The defence of resignation is an after thought.

The appellant Rajeev Verma was in exclusive and conscious possession of 1 Kg. Before considering the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to consider the nature of statement made under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , and whether the same is admissible in the light of Section 25 of Evidence Act?

Power to invest officers of certain departments with powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station. Section 25 of Evidence Act, reads as under State of Punjab reported in 16 SCC has held as under Inspector, Customs reported in 12 SCC has held as under Even otherwise, the prosecution will also be required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the confessional statement was made voluntarily. The allegations against the appellant Abdul Aziz is the confessional statement of co-accused Rajeev Verma Ex. Nothing was seized from the possession of Abdul Aziz. There is not a single whisper in the evidence of Mahavir Singh P.

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no evidence against the appellant Abdul Aziz and hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant Abdul Aziz beyond reasonable doubt. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to consider the meaning of "Possession", "conscious possession" and "exclusive possession". State of Rajasthan reported in 6 SCC has held as under :. Oswald v. The detention and control, or the manual or ideal custody, of anything which may be the subject of property, for one's use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who exercises it in one's place and name.

Act or state of possessing.

Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014

That condition of facts under which one can exercise his power over a corporeal thing at his pleasure to the exclusion of all other persons. The law, in general, recognizes two kinds of possession: actual possession and constructive possession. A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing, at a given time, is then in actual possession of it.

Raw ACT Scores and Scaled ACT Scores

A person who, although not in actual possession, knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it. The law recognizes also that possession may be sole or joint. If one person alone has actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession is sole. If two or more persons share actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession is joint.

Collini v. Defendant 'possesses' controlled substance when defendant knows of substance's presence, substance is immediately accessible, and defendant exercises 'dominion or control' over substance. State v. Craig; Wash 2d as well as joint or exclusive, Garvey v. State Ga App The defendants must have had dominion and control over the contraband with knowledge of its presence and character. United States v.

Poisons Act 1971

Morando-Alvarez F 2d MCConnell vs. State 48 Ala App Possession as used in indictment charging possession of stolen mail may mean actual possession or constructive possession. Ellison F2d To constitute 'possession' of a concealable weapon under statute proscribing possession of a concealable weapon by a felon, it is sufficient that defendant have constructive possession and immediate access to the weapon. Kelley 12 Or App ". A person does not lose 'possession' of an article which is mislaid or thought erroneously to have been destroyed or disposed of, if, in fact, it remains in his care and control R.

Buswel 1 WLR Dr Harris, in his essay titled "The Concept of Possession in English Law" while discussing the various rules relating to possession has stated that "possession" is a functional and relative concept, which gives the Judges some discretion in applying abstract rule to a concrete set of facts.

The learned author has suggested certain factors which have been held to be relevant to conclude whether a person has acquired possession for the purposes of a particular rule of law. Some of the factors enlisted by him are: a degree of physical control exercised by person over a thing, b knowledge of the person claiming possessory rights over a thing, about the attributes and qualities of the thing, c the person's intention in regard to the thing, that is, "animus possessionis" and "animus domini", d possession of land on which the thing is claimed is lying, also the relevant intention of the occupier of a premises on which the thing is lying thereon to exclude others from enjoying the land and anything which happens to be lying there; and Judges' concept of the social purpose of the particular rule relied upon by the plaintiff.

According to Harris, Judges have at the back of their mind a perfect pattern in which the possessor has complete, exclusive and unchallenged physical control over the subject; full knowledge of its existence; attributes and location, and a manifest intention to act as its owner and exclude all others from it. If, after the person appears before the Minister or his or her delegate, the Minister is not satisfied that the alleged contravention or non-compliance was not occurring or is not satisfied that the person has ceased the contravention or non-compliance.

Any number of unmarked cigarettes are found in the control of a person who does not hold a permit under subsection 9 1 and who is not otherwise authorized by this Act or the regulations to purchase, possess, store, sell or transport unmarked cigarettes. Any number of unmarked cigarettes are being transported or stored in Ontario for a person described in paragraph 1.

Tobacco in bulk is found in the control of a person who has not been designated as a collector under subsection 4 1 or 1. Tobacco in bulk is being transported or stored in Ontario for a person described in paragraph 3. Any amount of raw leaf tobacco is being transported or stored by a person. If the tobacco product is cigars, for every cigar, an amount equal to per cent of the price at which the cigar was sold.

If the tobacco is not cigarettes or fine cut tobacco,. Each person who is designated under subsection 4 1 or 1. Each importer or exporter who holds a registration certificate under subsection 5 1. Each interjurisdictional transporter who holds a registration certificate under subsection 6 1.

Each manufacturer who holds a registration certificate under subsection 7 1. Each person who holds a permit referred to in subsection 8 2 to mark cigarettes. Each person who holds a permit referred to in subsection 8 3 to stamp cigarettes. Each person who holds a permit referred to in subsection 9 1 to purchase and sell unmarked cigarettes. Each retail dealer who is temporarily prohibited under section 20 from selling, offering for sale or storing tobacco products at a particular place owned or occupied by the retail dealer.

Each retail dealer who is prohibited under section 22 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, from selling or storing tobacco products at a particular place. If the tobacco product is unmarked cigarettes, an amount equal to three times the tax that would be payable under section 2 by a consumer purchasing the same quantity of cigarettes that were purchased, stored, delivered, transported or possessed.

If the tobacco product is unmarked fine cut tobacco, an amount equal to three times the tax that would be payable under section 2 by a consumer purchasing the same amount of fine cut tobacco that were purchased, stored, delivered, transported or possessed. If the tobacco product is cigars, for every cigar purchased by the person, an amount equal to per cent of the price at which the cigar was purchased. If the tobacco product is not cigarettes, fine cut tobacco or cigars, an amount equal to three times the tax that would be payable under section 2 by a consumer purchasing the same quantity of tobacco products that were purchased, stored, delivered, transported or possessed.

Raw leaf tobacco seized or forfeited under subsection 2. Cigarette filter components or equipment for manufacturing cigarettes seized under subsection 7. Cigars or other tobacco seized or forfeited under subsection Unmarked tobacco products seized or forfeited under subsection Any item or thing acquired by the person, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, as a result of an act or omission that is an offence under this Act.


  • Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of .
  • Web of Fire?
  • Secret History - Hidden Forces That Shaped the Past;
  • Misuse of Drugs Act, !
  • Terre promise (French Edition)?
  • Any item or thing that was used to engage in the offence for which the person was convicted. Tobacco Tax Act, R. Print Download. Definitions 1. Tax on tobacco products other than cigars 2. Collection of tax 5. Registration certificate, importer or exporter 6. Registration certificate of interjurisdictional transporter 7.

    MOODS FOR MODERNS Possession (temp video w raw camera sound)

    Registration certificate of manufacturer 7. Marking or stamping packages 9. Permit to purchase unmarked cigarettes 9. Transit permit Refusal to designate, etc. Tobacco products brought into or received in Ontario Sales of tobacco products under Bulk Sales Act Absorption of tax Tax money is trust money Returns by collectors, etc. Transmission of tax Assessment Temporary prohibition of tobacco product sales Notice of objection Appeal Audit and inspection Detention of vehicles, etc. Recovery of tax Garnishment Use of remedy False statements Prohibitions re unmarked tobacco products Liability of officers of corporations Communication of information