Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 108 power to confirm finding and sentence of general security force court Page 1 of about 286 results (0.357 seconds)

P.B.Bansal Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... to the inspector general bsf for confirmation as contemplated by section 108 of the border security force act 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"). vide order dated 28.04.1995, exercising powers under section 113 of the act, the inspector general returned the record to the gsfc to revise/reconsider the ..... 1. the petitioner was enrolled with the border security force on 27.06.1966. he was promoted to the rank of subedar major (hindi translator) in ..... wherein he denied the charges levied upon him and alleged mala fide on behalf of the jad, vigilance and ci.5. the general security force court returned a verdict of guilty qua the first and fifth charge and exonerated the petitioner of the other three i.e. the ..... evidence to the competent authority. after considering the record of evidence, vide order dated 16.09.1994 the competent authority convened a general security force court (herein after referred to as the "gsfc") to try the petitioner as per the charge sheet dated 23.3.2004, which .....

P.C. Pande Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1978(11)WLN435

..... evidence may be needed. let us see the order itself. it is reproduced below:warrant for confirming findings and sentences of the general security force under the border security force act.tothe inspector general,border security force,jodhpur (rajasthan).in pursuance of the provisions of the border security force act, 1958 (47 of 1968), the central government is pleased to hereby empower you, or the officer on whom your command may devolve during ..... working as accountant-cum-cashier in that year the petitioner was prosecuted for misappropriating property under section 30 of the border security force act, 1968 (47 of 1968)(hereinafter referred to as the act'), during the year 1975-76. he was convicted by the general security force court and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. it was farther ordered that the petitioner was to be .....

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

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2000(2)WLN635

..... the inspector general is required to transmit the proceedings to the higher authority. the aforesaid notification is reproduced as follows:in pursuance of the provisions of the border security force act, 1968 (47 of 1968), the central government is pleased to hereby empower you, or the officer on whom your command may devolve during your absence, not ..... reasonable doubt that mens rea, which in view of the reasons given above, is a necessary ingredient of the offence punishable under section 40 of the border security force act. it is true that the burden to prove the ingredients of an offence lies on the prosecution and that this burden never shifts. the prosecution can ..... is not the end of the exercise necessary for answering the question whether mens rea is a necessary ingredient of the offence under section 40 of the border security force act. for the purpose of correctly ascertaining the intention of the legislature, the words used in the statute have to be construed. if the intention of .....

Sub.inspector Gurbachan Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... india. however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file petition under section 117(2) of the bsf act, 1968 to the confirming authority.25. thereafter the petitioner preferred petition under section 117(2) of the border security force act, 1969 to the director general, bsf, ministry of home affairs, govt. of india, which petition was rejected ..... unnecessary details, the factual backdrop leading to the filing of the present petition, is that in the year 1967 the petitioner was enrolled as a constable in border security force and earned promotions to the rank of sub-inspector in course of time. in the year 1981 the petitioner was attached to the bsf subsidiary training centre, ..... attached with stc bsf ranidanga. fourth charge bsf act section-26 3. intoxication in that he, at ranidanga on 06 dec 1981 at about 2000 hrs was found in a state of intoxication on july 08, 1982 inspector general, bsf, west bengal directed that a general security force court (hereinafter referred to as the gfsc ) .....

Atal Bihari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2008(1)JKJ53

..... confirmation statutory petition against the findings, sentence and order of a summary security force court. it is only section 118 of the border security force act, which contemplates power of annulment of proceedings of any security force court including a summary security force court. that being the case, the principle of merger projected in the judgment cited ..... petition may not be maintainable. in support of their contentions, the respondents say that the petitioner had committed the offence under section 46 of the border security force act at govindpur, raiganj (west bengal), and the orders impugned in the writ petition had been passed/issued by the respondents outside the jurisdiction of ..... case and, in that view of the matter, the findings and sentence of the summary security force court had been carried out, at a place which is outside the jurisdiction of this court.22. the border security force act does not provide any right to an accused to prefer a pre-confirmation or post- .....

Comdt. Atul Kumar Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.

Court : Delhi

..... border security force confirmed the finding and sentence of the security force court in terms of the provisions of section 107 of border security force act, 1968. 20. aggrieved by the finding and sentence awarded by the security force court which stood confirmed by the director general, the petitioner preferred a petition under section 117(2) of border security force act, 1969 to the directorate general border security force ..... , ministry of home affairs, government of india, which petition was rejected vide order dated 26.03.2007. 21. aggrieved by the finding and sentence awarded by the security force court and the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the directorate general, border security force, the petitioner ..... 1. petitioner atul kumar singh was enrolled as an assistant commandant with border security force (herein after referred to as the "bsf") and was promoted to the post of commandant in the year 2002. .....

O.P. Dahiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2003SC4464; 2003(1)AWC343(SC); [2003(1)JCR159(SC)]; JT2002(9)SC414; (2003)1SCC122; 2003(1)LC21(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC125

..... him by such consequential reconstitution of the court. that apart, we notice that the respondents were well within their authority under section 71(4) of the border security force act to issue the impugned order. the question of double jeopardy also does not arise because the petitioner was not either convicted or acquitted of the charges ..... to be made by the respondents while the petitioner was being tried by the fresh general security force court for certain misconduct alleged against him and by the said order exercising the authority vested under section 71(3) of the border security forces act, the inspector general (h.qs.) dissolved the said court on the ground that the functioning ..... , he also directed the constitution of a fresh court.2. the allegation of the appellant before the high court was that the proceedings before the general security forces court had almost come to an end and a re-trial would prejudice his case, apart from the fact that it would amount to double jeopardy.3 .....

Prosenjit Kundu Vs. the Presiding Officer, General Security Force Cour ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2006(88)DRJ856

..... frontier (annexure p.4), and the order of the director general, bsf rejecting the statutory petition filed by the petitioner under section 117(2) of the border security force act, and a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits for the intervening period. 2. the petitioner ..... during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner moved an application for suspension of his sentence on the ground that under section 130 of the border security force act, sentence can be suspended by the director general or any other empowered officer and the petitioner having already served sentence of six years and two months ..... shall be communicated to this court. pursuant to the orders of this court, the director general in exercise of his powers under section 130 of the border security force act passed an order on 26th september, 2005 by which the sentence of the petitioner was suspended for a period of six months pending the hearing of .....

Balwinder Singh Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... in the proceedings.46. the statutory scheme clearly sets out the legislative intent so far as the defence of a personnel covered under the border security force act is concerned. to facilitate defence of the accused before the courts, the statute provides for a defending officer, friend of accused and counsel at ..... it was held that the respondents had made mockery of the system.78. section 8 of the border security force act makes the provisions of the indian evidence act applicable to all proceedings before a summary security force court.79. the petitioner was placed in close arrest on 3rd october, 1997. it is noteworthy ..... 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 section 74 to try any offence punishable under the act subject to certain stipulated exceptions. sub-section 4 of .....

Yash Paul Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2004(2)JKJ401

..... in respect to 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 brought before the commandant for preliminary hearing on offence report under rule 45 of bsf ..... a direction for his reinstatement into service and release 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 any opportunity to properly defend himself. ..... -4-2003.2. it is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court seeking quashment of order dated 9-4-2003 issued by dig, border security force by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 12-9-2002 issued by the commandant, 71 bn whereby the petitioner was .....