Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 104 order for custody and disposal of property pending trial Page 3 of about 438 results (0.078 seconds)

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

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2003(3)JKJ381

..... transfer of the custody of the accused to bsf authorities for trial by exercising option under section 80 of the border security force act. section 80 of the border security force act 1968 reads as follows:'80. choice between criminal court and security force court -- when a criminal court and a security force court have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the discretion of the director-general ..... . in the objections filed by the respondents, it is averred that that the petitioner has not availed statutory remedy available to him under section 117 of the border security force act 1968, read with rule 167 of the border security force rules, 1969. petitioner was participating in anti-militancy operational duty in sensitive area of village dedha on 28. 5. 1998 when he was found missing from .....

Ajaib Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1997(40)DRJ710

..... 9th july 94.(4) the aforementioned order is under challenge on numerous grounds, including the one that the same is contrary to the provisions of the border security force act and the rules framed there under and the same has been passed without complying with the procedure prescribed under the law.(5) we have heard counsel ..... . petitioner could have and ought to have been duly tried under the provisions of section 48 of the border security force act by security court martial for the offence alleged against him under section 19-a of the act. since it was not done the petitioner's service could not have been dispensed with in exercise of ..... leave without reasonable cause, the administrative power conferred under section 11(2) could not have been exercised without complying with the requirement of rule 22 of the border security force rules, which reads: '22.dismissal of removal of persons other than officers on account of mis-conduct :- (1)whenit is proposed to terminate the service .....

Union of India and Another Vs. Ex Constable Amrik Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1991SC564; 1991CriLJ664; JT1991(1)SC282; 1991(1)SCALE91; (1991)1SCC654; [1991]1SCR182; 1991(1)LC684(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC325

orderk. jayachandra reddy, j.1. whether a personal hearing is required before disposing of a petition filed under section 117(2) of the border security force act, 1968 ('act' for short) against an order of the summary security force court? this in short is the question involved in this appeal filed by the union of india. 2. the facts that give rise to this appeal may be noted ..... at the outset. the sole respondent who was working as mounted constable in the border security force ('bsf' for short) was charged for an offence under section 31(b) of the act for extracting a sum of rs. 14,000 from a person without proper authority. a chargesheet was issued to the respondent. the evidence .....

Shri Thoru Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ172

..... december 1991 which is in the following terms:'whereas a case against shri. thoru ram (irla no. 2776). dy. comdt. of 115 bn bsf border security force in respect of an offence for a grave act of criminal negligence, is under investigation. 2. and whereas it is alleged that the said shri thoru ram, dy. comdt. of, 115 battalion ..... of the border security force and committed certain acts of omission and commission by issuing illegal order on 30.9.91 to the members of the force placed under his command to swim across a pond as a measure of punishment which has resulted in the ..... point of time, he was posted as deputy commandant. in may 1990, he was posted in 115 bn. which was then deployed in south bengal frontier of the border security force.4. the petitioner allegedly asked certain candidates to undergo swimming exercises at digberia, distt. barasat, west bengal on 30th september 1991.5. in course of the said .....

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

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ255

..... 74,000/-, whereas in the second charge amount shown is rs 79,495/-. however, in both the cases, it was a charge under section 46 of the border security force act, 1968. the sum and substance of the allegations is same. one fails to understand how a commandant who is entitled to frame 1st charge becomes in-competent to ..... .7. prayer is sought to be resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy provided under section 117 of the border security force act, 1968 read with rule 167 of the bsf rules, 1969, which is statutory in nature. it is alleged in the reply that the petitioner while officiating as ..... the commandant was not competent to frame/alter and issue fresh charge against the petitioner. that too without hearing him in terms of section 45(b) of the border security force act;(iii) no fresh roe was prepared under section 48 in respect to the second charge.(iv) there has been gross violation of the procedure prescribed under rules 45 .....

Ex. L/Nk Vimal Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... of the petitioner.28. the supreme court had occasion to consider the legality of a challenge to an order of dismissal from service passed by a general security force court constituted under the border security force act in the judgment reported at : air 2003 sc 1416 union of india v. b.n. jha. the court's observations on the spirit, purpose and ..... ought to be taken as a matter of abundant caution.62. the statutory scheme with regard to recording of a plea of guilt under the border security force act is similar to the scheme under the army act. the observations of the jammu and kashmir high court on the manner in which a plea of guilt is to be recorded in 1984 ..... the deputy commandant shri p.v. eappen for the same.47. the petitioner stood charged with the commission of an offence under section 26 of the border security force act, 1968. the commission of an offence under section 26 is punishable by imprisonment extending upto six months or such lesser punishment as is prescribed under the .....

In Re: for Stay (Can 6546/05)

Court : Kolkata

..... .f.c.10. the issue with regard to the illegality of the order of the authority deciding the petition of the appellant under section 117 of the border security force act, 1968, has not been considered by the trial court. there was some confusions amongst the learned counsel as to whether the point about the order dated ..... the appellant was informed by a notice that the commandant proposes to try the appellant by summary security force court ( hereinafter 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 ..... further reasons need not be recorded either by the confirming authority or by the post-confirming authority. in the proceedings under the bsf act, the evidence is recorded by an officer of the border security force and, therefore, cannot be equated with the summary of evidence as recorded in the court martial. we are unable to accept the .....

Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1999)2CALLT107(HC)

..... a final order with reasons nor could he get an opportunity to exercise his statutory right of making representation and/or appeal under section 117 of the border security force act. this writ petition was filed when the writ petitioner was in prison, and by an order dated 27.4.93 a learned judge of this ..... might have been sufficient to proceed to pass an order of punishment but in terms of the statutory rules framed under border security force act, the concerned respondents were bound to follow the procedure laid down under the act and rules framed thereunder. moreover, no reason has also been assigned in the order nor any final order has ..... the charges against the petitioner came within the purview of section 16(d) and section 46 of the border security force act which read thus :--'16. offences punishable more severely on active duty than at other times--any person subject to the act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say; (a) ........................ (d) without order .....

Gurdip Singh Bath Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with, while terminating the services of the petitioner as trial of the petitioner was held by the general security force court as required under the border security force act as the allegation against the petitioner was for an offence committed under section 18 of the bsf rules, suffice it to say that the competent authority on ..... per the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner had absented himself from duty without leave and therefore, had committed an offence unde section 18 of the border security force act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as 'the bsf act') because he was declared a deserter. for such serious allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the principles of natural justice demand that inquiry should have been .....

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

Court : Kolkata

..... .f.c.13. the issue with regard to the illegality of the order of the authority deciding the petition of the appellant under section 117 of the border security force act, 1968, has not been considered by the trial court. there was some confusions amongst the learned counsel as to whether the point about the order dated ..... the appellant was informed by a notice that the commandant proposes to try the appellant by summary security force court ( hereinafter 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 ..... further reasons need not be recorded either by the confirming authority or by the post-confirming authority. in the proceedings under the bsf act, the evidence is recorded by an officer of the border security force and, therefore, cannot be equated with the summary of evidence as recorded in the court martial. we are unable to accept the .....