Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 104 order for custody and disposal of property pending trial Page 11 of about 438 results (0.128 seconds)

Shyam Singh, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 128(2006)DLT346; 2006(88)DRJ483

..... we may add a word of caution. a large number of writ petitions and original applications have been filed challenging and questioning orders passed by border security force and other central police forces refusing to grant no objection certificates for absorption in the borrowing organisation like intelligence bureau, c.b.i. etc. allegations have also been made ..... another department and courts normally hesitate in issuing a mandamus for grant of no objection certificate unless it can be shown that the parent department has acted capriciously or in an arbitrary manner amounting to violation of articles 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution of india. the parent department has discretion ..... policy is accepted and rules are framed for such absorption, before rejecting the application, there must be justifiable reasons. respondent 1 cannot act arbitrarily by picking and choosing the deputationists for absorption. the power of absorption, no doubt, is discretionary but is coupled with the duty not to .....

Ajai Kumar Roy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2003CriLJ3999

..... a term which may extend to two years or such less punishment as is in the act mentioned. 13. section 28 of the border security force act, 1968 is also a verbatim reproduction of section 50 of the army act. section 50 of the army act provides for punishment to the officer who effects the arrest of his subordinate and fails to ..... report the arrest to his company or detachment commander who shall after investigating the case order the release or the continued arrest of the member of the force arrested.23. rule 33 of the border security force rules, 1969 ('bsf rules' for brevity) refers as to how 'close arrest' and 'open arrest' be imposed and the said rule reads as ..... act who is . charged with an offence may be taken in to military custody;2) any such person may be ordered into military custody by any superior officer;3) any officer may order into military custody any officer, though he may be of a higher rank, engaged in a quarrel, affray or disorder. 9. rule 40 of the border security force .....

Daroga Yadav Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2006(110)FLR277]; [2006(2)JCR353(Jhr)]

..... of powers conferred by proviso to section 47 of the disabilities act, 1995. by the said notification, the central government has exempted all categories of posts of 'combatant personnel' of central para-military force; central reserve police force; central industrial security force; indo-tibetian border police; border security force; and assam rifles. it was submitted that all categories of ..... posts of 'combatant personnel1 having been exempted from the rigor of section 47 of the disabilities act, 1995, it was open to the respondents to ..... s.j. mukhopadhaya, j.1. the petitioner was in the services of the border security force (hereinafter referred to as the b.s.f.). in the extremist attack in jammu & kashmir state, he sustained bullet injuries resulting .....

Prem Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... 1. the petitioner, a constable with border security force, attached with a coy of 83rd bn. bsf, was a member of the north bengal frontier shooting team. on 03.02.1996, the team arrived at new jalpaiguri railway station, ..... in spite of assault being a civil offence punishable under section 46 of the bsf act, the petitioner was wrongly charged under section 20(a) of the act by the commandant to avoid the mandatory reference under section 74 to an officer empowered to convene a petty security force court. (ii) that asst.comdt.dinanath was one of the attending officers of the ssfc ..... the reason the petitioner was charged and tried for having assaulted his superior officer, hc jai bhagwan singh, which offence is specifically punishable under section 20(a) of the bsf act and is different than the offence of assault punishable under the indian penal code, which is intended qua any person. for the sake of clarity, section 20(a) of bsf .....

Kundan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2001(1)WLN135

..... 1969'. he has referred to section 475 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 on a decision of the calcultta high court in capt. u.r. roy ..... trial and punishment of the offence triable or punishable under the act'. the central government has framed the rules known as criminal courts and border security force courts (adjustment of jurisdiction) rules, 1969 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 141 of the border security force act, 1968.19. the rules 3 and 4 of the rules ..... of 1969 reads as follows:3. trial of person subject to the act-where a person subject to the act is brought before a magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is .....

Ashok Kumar (Ex. Constable) Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)388; 2000(53)DRJ352

..... of the organisations and then ultimately to the union government. thereforee, ordinarily there should be a finality to the proceedings as envisaged by these enactments, in this case the border security force act and the border security force rules. the high court's powers under article 226 of the constitution to judicially review such findings is for a limited purpose, namely, for finding out whether there has ..... need hardly be said that the case put up by the prosecution and the material relied upon had been supplied in accordance with the requirements of the rules under the border security force act. if any further material was required for the purpose of defense, it could always have been summoned during trial. the petitioner chose not to exercise this option in the conduct .....

Nirmal Lakra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003(1)SLJ151(Delhi)

..... any opinion, the materials-on-record and the objective approach are the keywords.43. let us now consider the provisions of the bsf act. chapter viii of the bsf act provides for the procedure of security force courts. the court may consist of several members, in which event, the majority of votes shall decide the fate of the accused, ..... taken was to the effect that he on patrolling duty and well within indian territory and on what basis, they come to the conclusion that they crossed the border willingly, cannot be deciphered. a similar stand of the respondents would be evident from the following protest note:-'subject: protest note 1. please accept our warm compliments ..... also been complied with.the learned counsel would contend that a finding of fact has been arrived at to the effect that the petitioner had crossed the international border along with personal weapons and ammunitions and in an intoxicated state and as the said incidence brought bad name to the country he was required to be .....

Yacub Kispotta and Others Vs. Director General BSF and Others

Court : Delhi

..... (hereafter "bsf") action dismissing them from its services without holding any inquiry or giving them opportunity to explain their alleged misconduct in accordance with its parent law, the border security force act, 1968 ("the act") or the border security force rules, 1969 ( rules ?) framed there-under. 2. the facts necessary to decide this case are that all the petitioners were enrolled as constables with bsf at different points ..... the merits, it would be necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the act and the rules, i.e. the border security force rules, 1969. the same are as follows: i provisions of the act section 14. offences in relation to the enemy and punishable with death.- any person subject to this act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,- (a) shamefully .....

D.D. Sharma (Ex. Asstt. Comdt.) Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 74(1998)DLT92; 1998(46)DRJ162

..... notice as also to the order of dismissal passed by the respondents invoking the power under rule 20 of the bsf rules, 1969.2. the petitioner joined the border security force as sub-inspector in the year 1970 and, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of inspector in the year 1980. in 1986, the petitioner was transferred to ..... the respondents issued an apprehension role to the petitioner for his apprehension through civil police in accordance with the provisions of rules 60 and 611 of the bsf act, but the same also could not be executed and the petitioner could not be apprehended.3. a one man court of enquiry to enquire into the circumstances under ..... central government considered the facts and circumstances of the case at length for coming to the conclusion that his trial by general security force court for the offence of desertion under section 18 of the bsf act was inexpedient and impracticable. the reasons have been stated in the records and the decision was taken at the level of .....

Balganad Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 97(2002)DLT45; 2003(1)SLJ71(Delhi)

..... as 'friend of accused' inorder to assist the petitioner. 10. on 12th august, 1996, the petitioner wastried by the summary security force court in strictcompliance of all the procedural requirementsprovided under the bsf act and rules. during thecourse of the aforesaid trial, the charges framedagainst the petitioner were read over and explainedto him in hindi in ..... and ors. ; inc.w.p. no. 4687/2001 disposed of on 4th september,2001. 13. in view of the records of the proceedingsof the summary security force court, the contentionof the petitioner that he did not plead guilty isalso without any merit. in that view of thematter, i find no merit in this petition ..... , i proceedto dispose of this writ petition. 7. the records read with the statements madein the counter affidavit indicate that the petitioner was recruited in the border securityforce on 23rd june, 1990 and thereafter he wasdismissed from service in the year 1996. the petitioner had thus rendered about six years ofservice. the service .....