Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: bombay police act 1951 maharashtra section 10 deputies to commissioner Court: delhi Page 1 of about 582 results (0.225 seconds)

Management of the Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurudasmal, Supdt. of ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1969Delhi330; ILR1969Delhi426

..... investigate an offence nto committed within a union territory.point no. (6):--32. the bombay police act, 1951, no doubt consolidates the police forces of the different parts of the state into one common police force. it could not, however, repeal the delhi special police establishment act, 1946, authorising the special police to go into the state of maharashtra with the consent of the maharashtra government to investigate an ..... in the state of maharashtra could be given in view of the provisions of the bombay police act, 1951 or was given under section 6 of the act of 1946 and (7) sections 104 and 105 of the insurance act, 1938, punish offences similar to those as are punishable under sections 405, 409 and 477-a of the indian penal code. the prosecution under the insurance .....

R.S. Yadav and Another Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan and Others

Court : Delhi

..... section 140(1) of the act, we are of the view that the high court was right in holding that the present case falls within the ambit ..... was whether the said matter was governed by section 161(1) of the bombay police act, 1951. it was held that unless there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it cannot be said that the act was done by the accused officer under the colour of the office (p. ..... the scope and duties of the respondent police officers and they are not entitled to the protection conferred by section 161(1) of the bombay police act. 19. having regard to the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of this court on provisions contained in section 161(1) of the bombay police act, 1951 which are similar to those contained in .....

Emma Charlotte Eve Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)65

..... the prosecution to prove that the accused had knowledge of the contents of his luggage and had accordingly possessed and imported an intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of the bombay prohibition act. 26. in order to connect the appellant with the contraband, it is alleged that on 28th march, 1996, the parcel in question was posted from santa marta ( ..... changed and the containers being re-sealed cannot be ruled out. 30. in shafiullah vs . state : 49(1993)dlt193 , it was found that the seals remained with the police officers after use and the cfsl form was neither prepared on the spot nor deposited in the malkhana and this circumstance was held to be fatal to the prosecution case ..... was loaded into the trailer attached to a jeep car. some time later, the accused got into the jeep and when the jeep was about to start, a police head constable stopped it in order to made a search in connection with a suspected of-fence. on search, 75 bottles of foreign liquor were found in the trunks .....

Hari Ram Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1980Delhi102

..... came to the conclusion that 'the power to initiate proceedings under the act has been vested in a very high and responsible officer and he is expected to act with caution and impartiality while discharging his duties under the act.' (16) the bombay police act of 1902 was replaced by bombay police act, 1951 (act no. xxii of 1951). sections 55, 56 and 57 were exacted for extemment of persons while section ..... ) we will first decide the questions of law and then advert to, wherever necessary, the facts of each case. (4) before the commencement of the delhi police act, 1978 some of the provisions of bombay police act, 1951 (act no. xxii of 1.951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the bombay act') with necessary modifications were extended to and enforced in delhi. sections 55, 56 and 57 of the extended .....

Chameli Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1988(15)DRJ313

..... . this was a case under section 56 and section 59 of bombay police act, 1951. these sections are somewhat similar to sections 47 and 50 of the delhi police act but there are certain vital differences on some points which i shall refer presently. section 56 of the bombay act also gives two alternative actions : firstly that a person can be ..... in which it was held that though all details and particulars need not and cannot be given in the notice under section 59 of the bombay police act still the section enjoins the externing authority to give at least generally the materials allegations in the said notice. in the impugned notice it was found ..... in view of the judgment of the supreme court in pandharinath shridhar rangnekar v. deputy commissioner of police, the state of maharashtra : 1973crilj612 . in the said case the supreme court while construing the provisions of bombay police act of similar nature had clearly held that such provisions are not unconstitutional.(13) i find no merit .....

Balbir Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 125(2005)DLT543; 2005(85)DRJ523

..... namely, section 64(b) of the bombay police act. the act complained of in that case was also beating of the complainant by the police officer and the court was again of the opinion that the protection of section 64(b) of the bombay police act would not be available for committing such an act as the act complained of could not be treated as ..... view that, prima facie, provisions of section 140 of the delhi police act would not be applicable if one has to take into consideration the allegations made in the ..... the respondents and the duties and obligations imposed on them by law. such acts would fall outside the scope of duties of the police officers as they are not entitled, thereforee, to the mantle of protection conferred by section 161(1) of the bombay police act.11. applying the aforesaid test in the present case, i am of the .....

Raj Pal Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1969Delhi1099

..... petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to assailing the virus ofclause(c) of section 57 of the bombay police act, 1951 (bombay act xxii of 1951). in so far as that clause has reference to the delhi public gambling act, 1955 (delhi act ix of 1955), in order to appreciate the above argument, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions a of ..... destroyed.'(9) in order to determine whether the allegations made in section 57 of the bombay police act as extended to delhi are mere modifications or not, it would be necessary to refer to the case reported in : [1951]2scr747 regarding the delhi laws act. section 7 of the delhi laws act, 1912, provided that 'the provincial government may by notification in the official gazette extend .....

Jamil Ahmad Vs. A.K. Kanth

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1985CriLJ849; 1984(2)Crimes955; 27(1985)DLT45; ILR1985Delhi63

..... corresponds to s. 47 of the act. the aforesaid supreme court authority held as ..... act under which the impugned notice was given. the case reported as pandharinath shridhar rangnekar v. dy. commr. of police, maharashtra, : 1973crilj612 dealt with a similar question in regard to s. 59 of the bombay police act (22 of 1951) which provision of law corresponds to section 50 of the act. section 56 of the bombay police act ..... supreme court authority reported as state of gujarat v. mehbubkhan usmankhan : 1969crilj26 was followed, which while dealing with ss. 56 and 58 of the bombay police act, had laid down that it was sufficient if the notice under s. 59 contained general nature of the material allegations. 12. another authority reported as .....

Harjeet Singh @ Poppy and Sudhadhar @ Sofi @ Sudhakar Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003CriLJ2151; 103(2003)DLT217; 2003(67)DRJ46

..... on his chest. the apex court while convicting the appellant for an offence under section 304 part ii ipc and section 37(1) red with section 135 of the bombay police act, 1951 sentenced him to 5 years r.i.23. in kunhayippu v. state of kerala 2000 scc (cri) 1374 the accused appellant gave a stab blow in the abdomen ..... 1997.7. after six days of the incidental on 28.11.1997 the appellant harjeet singh was arrested from his house. he made a disclosure statement which led the police party to the ticket counter at old delhi railway station where the appellant sudhakar was apprehended. they also recovered the clothes which they were wearing at the time of ..... 9.1.2001 and order dated 10.1.2001 delivered by the learned additional sessions judge in sessions case no. 39/98 arising out of fir no. 599/97 of police station shakarpur under section 302/34 ipc, thereforee, these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.2. the learned additional sessions judge convicted the appellant harjeet singh @ .....

Shahid Balwa Vs. the Directorate of Enforcement

Court : Delhi

..... confront to cross-examine these witnesses was given to the suspect.22. the said judgment pertains to an order of externment passed against the petitioner under the city of bombay police act. the action of externment was done to protect the general public against the dangerous and bad characters, and in view of the purpose of the statute, the court ..... on various judgments to try and submit that there is no inherent right for cross-examination. the first judgment relied upon by him is gurcharan singh vs- state of bombay, air 195.sc 221.relevant paragraph 7 is reproduced as under:the only point which mr.umrigar attempts to make in regard to the reasonableness of this procedure is ..... ., (2002) 4 scc 275.(vi)hira nath mishra and others vs- the principal, rajendra medical college, ranchi and others (1973) 1 scc 805.(vii)gurcharan singh vs- state of bombay and anr., air 195.scr 737.(viii) state bank of india vs. allied chemical laboratories and anr. (2006) 9 scc 252.and (ix) state of kerala vs. k.t .....