LACHHMAN SINGH AND KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order deals with criminal Revisions NOB. 290, 292, 293, 294 and 296 of 1949. The cases have been referred to a Division Bench by Kapur J. as he experienced some difficulty in deciding the nature of possession involved in these oases. The petitions have arisen out of five different exercise cases in which the allegation of the prosecution was that the accused person (in each case) was in possession of a quantity of lahan. In all' oases the lahan had been buried by the accused person. In two oases the lahan was buried out in the fields and in three cases the lahan was buried in a kotha. The point raised before Kapur J. was whether in any of these oases the accused person could be said to have been in possession of lahan which is a contraband article the possession of which is forbidden by law. Kapur J. referred to the definition of possession as given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and then concluded as follows:

(2.) I find it difficult to lay down a cut and dry principle with regard to the question of possession. The definition of possession as quoted in the referring order of my learned brother Kapur J. is as follows:

(3.) IT is scarcely necessary to mention that there are many reported oases in which articles lying in a field have been held to be in possession of the accused person and as many cases in which such articles have been held not to be in possession of the accused person. The ultimate -decision of this issue must depend on a number of other factory which will go to show whether the article was under the dominion and control of the person concerned or was lying there beyond his control, Therefore, in order to decide whether a quantity of lahan or illicit liquor or illicit arm is or is not in possession of the accused person, the Court will have to consider not merely whether the article is lying at the house of the accused person or at a place accessible to others, but a number of other circumstances the proof of which will persuade the Court to come to the conclusion that the article was in fact under the control and absolute dominion of the person concerned. And it is only from this point of view that I propose to deal with the oases before me.