Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: border security force act 1968 section 3 · Page 1 of about 344 results (0.051 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.

Feb 16 2010

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-16-2010

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 14, 17, 46, 64, 70, 70(1), 70(2), 70(3), 70(4), 70(5), 74, 117, 117(2) and 141; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 162, 164 and 165; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 99, 99(1) and 133 to 161; Army Rules - Rule 66(1)

Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE396

the High Court directed remand in all the matters to the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for rewriting the order, giving reasons in support of the … the rank of the officer holding the SSFC. The offences under the Act are as mentioned in Chapter III while Chapter IV deals with the punishments. Section 117 of the Act provides for remedy against order, finding

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

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 … under Section 475 Cr.P.C., for stay of proceedings against the accused Subhash Chander H.C. in case FIR No. 31/93, under Section 279/337 IPC, P.S. Vinay Nagar and for transfer of same to them.2. Prosecution allegations in brief

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 06 1996

V.S. Hamsa Vs. Director General, Border Security Force and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-06-1996

Subject : CriminalLimitation

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 3 and 77; Army Act - Sections 123 and 123(2); Constitution of India - Article 32; Army Rules

Reported in : 1997CriLJ878

is no longer a member of the Border Security Force and therefore any proceedings initiated under the B.S.F. Act, 1968 are void and the appellant cannot be subjected to any such proceedings.2. The above argument is based on … Delhi on the ground that these proceedings are illegal and void. The appellant was a member of the Border Security Force and he retired from that service on 31-10-93. According to respondents, in an enquiry conducted by the D.I.G. … are void and the appellant cannot be subjected to any such proceedings.2. The above argument is based on Section 3 of the B.S.F. Act. Under Section 3 it is stated that officers and subordinate officers and under-officers and

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Mar 01 2004

Krishna Chandra Chaurasiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-01-2004

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 23 and 48; Indian Penal Code; Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Act

Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1409; (2004)2UPLBEC1784

of the first 12 of following questions you will be liable to be punished as provided in the Border Security Force Act, 1968.'Since at the trial the petitioner was found to be guilty under Section 23 of the B.S.F. Act, 1968 … verification of the petitioner was got conducted through the District Magistrate who submitted the same to respondent No. 3, A.D.I.G./ Commandant S.T.C./Border Security Force, North Bengal, Salugara, District Jalpaigudi stating that on inquiry, the petitioner was found

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 25 1995

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. S.S. Ranade

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-25-1995

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 2 and 141; Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 - Rules 3, 6, 7 and 9; Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 14A

Reported in : [1995(71)FLR492]; JT1995(2)SC582; 1995(3)SCALE65; (1995)4SCC462; [1995]3SCR773; (1995)3UPLBEC1499

the security of the borders of India and matters connected therewith, are governed by the provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act enables the Central Government, by notification, to make rules for the … Security Force practically together, upsetting normal recruitment plans of a duly organised service which would normally recruit about 30/40 Officers per year. This sudden recruitment of a large number of officers of the same seniority had caused

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 … and cross-examined during the recording of ROE. Further allegation is on recording of the ROE, the charge under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could not be established and

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 … through letter dated 21-8-1999 to join the duties immediately, but he did not do so. On expiry of 30 days of his absence a Court of Inquiry under Section 62 of the Act was ordered by the

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, … ourconsideration in these appeals, it is necessary for us to examinecertain provisions of the BSF Act and Rules. Section 3 of the saidAct reads thus:'3. Persons subject to this Act- (1) The following persons shall be subject to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 19 2000

Kundan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-19-2000

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 2001(1)WLN135

of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 46, 47, 80 and Section 2 (a) & (d) of Border Security Force Act, 1968, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act of 1968'. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has heavily placed reliance … learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Sessions Case No. 29/1988 convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 03 2009

In Re: an Appln. for Stay (Can 6546/05)

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-03-2009

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 26, 40, 87, 117, 117(1) and 117(2); ;Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 48.3, 156 and 167 to 169; ;Evidence Act, 1872; ;Army Act, 1950 - Sections 162, 164 and 164(2); ;Constitution of India - Article 226

referred to as SSFC) at 10-30 a.m. on 12th November, 2001 under Sections 40 and 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The appellant was given liberty to be present along with any person of the Battalion as friend, as … 27.10.2000Brought a local womanto NakaMachan, while performingambushDuty in the area of BOPLachugachhOn International BorderwithBangladesh.BSF ACT BSF ACT 1968 SECTION-26SECTION -26 INTOXICATIONCHARGE-IIIn that he,At about 22.30 hrs.on 27.10.2000,While an ambush dutyin area ofBOP Lachugachh foundin a stateof intoxication2. … authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. In paragraph 36 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court categorically concludes:The need for recording

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