Advanced Search Results

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

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, … beprosecuted before the Special Judge because the appellant wasalready tried and awarded a minor punishment of severedispleasure under Section 53 of the BSF Act, therefore, therecannot be a second proceeding on the very same charge under hePrevention of

P.R. Sumiyon Vijayraj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force (Tenure and Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002 - Rules 4, 14, 18 and 19; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 48 and 53; Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 19; Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 - Rule 19

one ground stating that there was a clear violation of provision of law particularly Rule 14 of the Border Security Force (Tenure and Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules',)3. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel in … a incident of service and impugned transfer did not attract any punitive action as contemplated under the Boarder Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, the Act), this transfer cannot be said to be punitive one. The petitioner has only been … actions have been categorically and explicitly laid down in the Act itself. Sections 48 and 53 prescribe for major and minor punishment respectively and on

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

Court : Rajasthan

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 … court martial.9. Recently, the Apex Court in Union of India Vs Major A. Hussain, reported in 1998(1) SCC 537, in para 23 circumscribed the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Rakesh Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 21(2), 24, 35 and 46; Army Act; Evidence Act; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 44, 45B, 45B(1), 45B(2), 48 and 53(2); Army Rules - Rule 149; Defence Service Regulations

Reported in : 152(2008)DLT663

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner is serving as Commandant in the Border Security Force. He is facing trial by the General, Security Force hereinafter referred to as GSFC for disobedience of lawful … and for making false allegations against his superiors punishable under Sections 21(2), 24(b) and 35(a) of the BSF Act, 1968. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under:CHARGE SHEET The accused Shri Rakesh Sharma, Second-in-Command, IRLA No. … him, malingering and for making false allegations against his superiors punishable under Sections 21(2), 24(b) and 35(a) of the BSF Act, 1968. The charges framed … It is noteworthy that the very same format is adopted by Rule 53(2) of the BSF Rules in drawing up of the charge sheet. The

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

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

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 … in 1994 as Subedar (Inspector). A charge-sheet came to be served upon him containing the following charge:APPENDIX VIRULE 53 920CHARGE SHEETThe accused No. 870021695 Subedar Nawab Khan of 5th BN BSF is charged with-BSF ACT 1968Section 46:

Balwinder Singh Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Border Security Force

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Rule 53(2) ; Sections 40, 26, 117, 53, 5575

consider the statutory position with regard to persons subjected to the Border Security Force. Section 70 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (BSF Act hereafter) provides the constitution of a Summary Security Force Court (`SSFC' hereafter). It is permitted under … or by any criminal court. It is further explained that the petitioner had not been dealt with under Section 53 or Section 55 of the BSF Act but the proceedings against him were merely set aside on technical

Chanchal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Rules - Rule 142 and 142(2); ;Border Security Force Act - Sections 18(1) and 80

Reported in : 2003(3)JKJ381

dismissed from service vide the impugned order dated 18.11.1999. This punishment was imposed under section 18(1) of the Border Security Force Act 1968. As far as the commission of offence under Section 376/452 RPC is concerned, the authority i. e. the … the charge-sheet wherein charge under Section 18(1) of BSF Act 1968 has been framed against the petitioner. Page 53 is again a certificate which also contains question and answer and in regard to plea of guilty said

Ex. Const. Tejbir Singh Vs. Union of India and Other

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

234, 235 and 236 thereof. In the case at hand, the offences complained of have arisen under the Border Security Force Act, 1968, to which, admittedly, the petitioner/accused was subject, and which forms a complete Code as regards the offences, as … nature of the charges do not conform to the requirements of Rule 53 (1) of Chapter VIII of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 relating … was tried at one trial. There, the Court had occasion to consider the three exceptions laid down in Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, as well as Sections 234, 235 and 236 thereof. In the

Yash Paul Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; ;Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 19; ;Border Security Force Rules - Rule 45

Reported in : 2004(2)JKJ401

of salary etc. The main ground of challenge in the petition is that the procedure prescribed under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the rules framed there-under has not been followed. In as much as the petitioner was not provided … allegations of non-observance of the procedure prescribed under rules, it is stated that the petitioner was charged under section 19(b) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 for over-staying the leave without any sufficient cause. He was … Commandant ordered for Abstract of Evidence and served him charge-sheet under Rule 53 (2) on 11-8-2002. During the Abstract of Evidence he was given full

Ram Ashray Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Land Acquisition

petitioner argued that the petitioner is charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20(a) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. He refers to the provision of 3 Section 20(a) and argues that the said provision only pertains to … have taken place on 29.6.1999. On 30.6.1999, the allegations and charge-sheet in accordance to Appendix 6 to Rule 53(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969 is prepared; names of five witnesses are indicated as witnesses to the incident;