Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: border security force act 1968 section 1 · Page 1 of about 347 results (0.044 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jan 04 2002

Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-04-2002

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173, 446, 451, 475, 475(1) and 482; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 46, 80 and 81; Border Security Force Courts (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1969 - Rules 3 to 9; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 337; Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 - Rules 3 to 9; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 125 and 126

Reported in : 2002IIIAD(Delhi)433; 96(2002)DLT217; 2002(62)DRJ16

by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing application moved by the Commanding Officer under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, 'BSF Act') read with BSF Courts (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the … S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 21st March, 1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 20 1996

Sukhwant Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-20-1996

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 20(1); Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 98; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 48

Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)77; 1996CriLJ4079; 1996(38)DRJ299

about the said design to his superior officer. Proceedings before General Security Force Court were held under the Border Security Force Act,1968. After affording full opportunity to the petitioner, the proceeding of conviction was submitted. Authority sentenced the petitioner to … Usha Mehra, J. (1) This petitioner was charged with three offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1988'). The first charge against

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 26 2000

S.A. Qadir Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-26-2000

Subject : Service

Reported in : 2000(2)WLN635

the appellant is that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of the offence under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Section 40 reads:40. Violation of good order and discipline-Any person subject to this Act who is guilty of any … N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 17, 1998, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner, hereinafter referred-to as the petitioner' seeking direction to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Sep 07 2007

Shri Chandram J.M. S/O Shri Jettappa Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-07-2007

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 6, 9, 10, 11, 14 to 46, 48, 48(1), 49, 50, 64, 70 and 117; Central Police Act, 1949; Army Regulations; Army Rules; Central Civil Services Pension Rules - Rule 25; Pension Rules - Rules 3 and 25; Constitution of India - Articles 22 and 311

Reported in : 2008(3)KarLJ303; 2007(6)AIRKarR441; 2008LabIC(NOC)83(Kar)

dismissed.34. Petitioner is a Member of the Border Security Force which is a paramilitary force created under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. This Force was part of Central Police Act, 1949. It was given a separate identity as Border SecurityForce created under the Border Security Force Act, [Act No. 47] of 1968 [for short 'the Act'].2. It appears he is a constable in the … of the Force, but also for bringing disrepute to the Force which is an offence in terms of Section 40 of the Act3. Such action had been taken as a follow up on the complaint lodged by

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 25 1995

Gajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-25-1995

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 46, 47, 47(1), 80, 81 and 141(2); Army Act, 1950; Navy Act, 1957; Air Force Act, 1950; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307, 323 and 452; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 41, 41(1) and 42; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 192, 439 and 475; Criminal Courts and Security Force Courts (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1969 - Rules 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8; Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 - Rules 3 and 4; Constitution of India; Air Force Law

Reported in : 1995CriLJ3347; 1995(3)WLC635; 1995(2)WLN31

the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application dated 23-5-1994 filed under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short, 'the Act') by the D. I. G., B. S. F., Bikaner (non-petitioner No. 2) and directed … ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23rd July, 1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application dated 23-5-1994 filed under Section 80

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 18 2005

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-18-2005

Subject : ServiceCivil

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 10; Army Act, 1959 - Sections 19; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 14; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 20, 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 20(4) and 20(5); Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 - Rule 2; Transaction of Business Rules, 1961 - Rule 8

Reported in : AIR2006SC124; [2005(107)FLR840]; JT2005(12)SC515; 2005(8)SCALE397; (2005)8SCC760; 2006(1)SLJ312(SC)

peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Service - Competent Authority - Border Security Force Act 1968, Section 10; Border Security Force Rules 1959, Rules 20(4), 20 (5); Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1969 … Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) 21363 of 2005/CC No. 6855 of 1999.2. Both these appeals have matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 25 2013

State of J and K and Another Vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-25-2013

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Ranbir Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302, 109, 201; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 80, 2(1)(a), 47, 141(1), 141(2); Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1983 - Rule 7, 41; Constitution of India - Article 136

judicial custody. He went on to say that in exercise of his discretion under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) he has decided to institute proceeding against them before the Security Forcesection (2) will not control or limit the width of the powers conferred on the appropriate Government by sub-section (1) of Section 15; and so, if it appears that the item added by the appropriate Government has relation

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 03 2005

Nawab Khan, Sub [No. 870021695] Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 20, 40, 45(B), 46, 48, 89, 107, 108 and 117; ;Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section 3; ;Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987 - Section 13(1) and 13(2); ;Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 45B, 48, 51, 51A, 59, 73 and 167; ;Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1998 - Section 13; ;Army Act - Sections 52 and 63; ;Evidence Act; ;Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; ;Army Rules - Rules 22 and 149; ;Defence Service Regulations; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ255

of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could not be established and a fresh charge under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 for committing offence in terms of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 05 2003

Shiv Parshad Pandey Vs. C.B.i. Through Director, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-05-2003

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2); Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 3(2), 17, 52, 53, 57, 75, 77, 77(2), 80, 81 and 84; Border Security Force Rules - Rules 41, 45B, 51A, 52, 53, 53(2) to 106 and 170 to 174; Army Act, 1950

Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR934; 2003CriLJ1710; JT2003(2)SC413; 2003(2)SCALE658; (2003)11SCC508; 2003(1)LC640(SC)

appellant.27. In the said view of the matter, these appeals fail and thesame are dismissed. Service Law - Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 52, 53, 75, 77 and 81 - B. S. F. Rules - 41, 45B, 51A, 53, … order dated 8.7.1998 made by thelearned Special Judge, C.B.I., Patiala by which charges wereframed against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read withSection 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Theappellant sought for quashing of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 27 2005

Sunil Kumar Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : May-27-2005

Subject : Civil

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11(4), 19 and 62; ;Border Security Rules, 1969 - Rules 20, 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 20(6), 21, 22, 22(2), 28A, 48, 49, 167, 168, 170 to 176 and 177; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1968 - Rules 20, 21, 22(2) and 177

Reported in : 2005(3)JKJ159

Dias non. This order has been challenged on the ground that no inquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with rules 170 to 176 of the Border Security Rules, 1969 was held against him. He was … Permod Kohli, J.1. Dismissal of the petitioner vide order dated 10-3-2000 and treating the period of absence from 2-8-1999 to 9-3-1999 (221 days) as Dies Non is under challenge

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial