Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 108 power to confirm finding and sentence of general security force court Court: rajasthan Page 1 of about 4 results (0.117 seconds)

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 .....

R. Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1997(2)WLC464; 1997(1)WLN201

..... gratuity and other benefits to which the petitioner would have been entitled to.5. section 48 of the border security force act enumerates the punishments to be inflicted in respect of the offences committed by the persons subject to the border security force act i.e.death, imprisonment, dismissal from service, forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension ..... any such punishment for forfeiture of service for the purpose of pension or any other prescribed purpose in terms of. section 48(g) of the border security force act.4. the facts as stated by the petitioner are not denied in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. however, it is denied by ..... . while in service he was charged for having committed an offence under section 40 of the border security force act vide charge-sheet dated 14.12.1994 and was tried by the summary security force court on 6.3.1995. summary security force court found him guilty of the offence and he was punished with the penalty of dismissal from .....

Gajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1995CriLJ3347; 1995(3)WLC635; 1995(2)WLN31

..... dated 23rd july, 1994, passed by the learned sessions judge, jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application dated 23-5-1994 filed under section 80 of the border security force act, 1968 (in short, 'the act') by the d. i. g., b. s. f., bikaner (non-petitioner no. 2) and directed that the accused-petitioner be handed over to ..... . the central government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 141 of the act has made the criminal courts and border security force courts (adjustment of jurisdiction) rules 1969 (in short 'adjustment of jurisdiction rules'). rule 2(iii) of the said rules defines 'competent authority', which means ..... the director general, inspector general, or a deputy inspector general of the border security force.13. rule 3 deals with the trial of person subject to the act. it proclaims that where a person subject to the act is brought before a magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is liable to be .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. S.S. Kothiyal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1995(2)WLC288; 1995(1)WLN351

..... lieutenant on 30.6.1963. the petitioner was promoted as captain in the year 1965 and acting major in the year 1966. the petitioner was released from the army service on 16.9.1967 and was absorbed in the border security force where he was already working on deputation for some time as assistant commandant.3. respondents no. ..... as deputy commandant. this too is an admitted fact as recorded in the dpc proceedings that only such officers were appointed and absorbed as assistant commandant in the border security force, who had a high average record in the army and who did well during the interview. there were no interviews held for the post of deputy commandants. ..... that the record of the petitioner even in the army was a high average record otherwise he would not have been absorbed as assistant commandant in the border security force. there is nothing to indicate in the proceedings the basis for supersession of the petitioner respondent no. 1. reference may usefully be made to the observations .....

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 .....

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

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN209

..... rifle 7.62 slr (body no. 1934) at nos. 85102613 const. v. purushottam of the same coy. with an intent to kill.' the act of the appellant was termed as an offence under section 46 of the border security force act, 1968 and also a civil offence punishable under section 307 ipc. the deputy inspector general (headquarters) after reaching at the conclusion that the case ..... in question was not falling within the exception provided under section 46 of the act of 1968 directed to try the appellant by summary security force court (ssfc). the summary security force court by its order .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Onkar Kanwar

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2007(1)WLN453

..... the petitioner's husband was habitual offender of consuming liquor on duty.11. we find that section 26 of chapter - iii of the boarder security force act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act of 1968' only) defines offence for intoxication and punishments to be awarded. it is not the essential ingredients of a charge of misconduct of ..... (c) of section 48 is a lesser punishment and could have been inflicted to the incumbent in terms of section 26 of the act of 1968 on being punished by summary security force court.20. learned counsel for the appellant contends that once the offence under section 26 is proved to have been committed by the incumbent ..... . in that view of the matter, no interference was called for with the punishment imposed by the security force court in exercise of the powers vested under the statute as it has acted within his jurisdiction and not acted unreasonably in punishing the petitioner's husband. it is rather unfortunate that soon after the appeal was rejected .....

Kamla Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... the year 2007. this is because the implementation of the rules in the present form has resulted in discriminatory treatment to the members of the paramilitary forces like border security force and central reserve police force, even though their act of gallantry cannot in any way be underestimated. awardees of the president's police medal, who are otherwise similarly situate, have to be placed at par ..... petition and submitted that the rules of 1966 are not applicable either to the members of the border security force or the central reserve police force. the amendment in the rules of 1966 vide notification dated 18.09.2002 brings the awardees of police medals for the act of gallantry to the members of the indian police service, within the purview of the rules of .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Umesh Kumar Malik

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2805

..... conduct would have been different.7. the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that section 62 of the b.s.f. act is a procedure provided for declaring a person deserter from security force and then to suffer the consequence as a deserter. desertion from b.s.f. tentamounts to an offence. on the other hand to ..... misconduct if accorded with the aforesaid procedure does not suffer from the vice of non-enquiry or defective enquiry.14. it may further be noticed that the security force in itself enjoys different status and the rules have been framed under legislative mandate and not under proviso to article 309. the ordinary principle of natural justice ..... -rule (2) required that when after considering the reports on an officer's misconduct, the competent authority is satisfied that the trial of the officer by a security force court is inexpedient for impracticable, but is of the opinion, that further retention of the said officer in the service is undesirable, it shall inform him that .....