Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 17 mutiny Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 688 results (0.281 seconds)

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. B.N. Jha

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2003SC1416; 2003(3)AWC1948(SC); (2003)3CALLT15(SC); [2003(97)FLR1034]; 2003(3)JKJ41[SC]; JT2003(3)SC201; 2003(3)SCALE8; (2003)4SCC531; [2003]2SCR721; 2003(2)SLJ395(SC);

..... a component thereof the same cannot be treated to be a separate unit for the purpose of rule 45b of the rules. section 2(1)(f) of the border security force act defines commandant with reference to a unit and not commandant as a holder of post.19. rule 46 is a proviso or an exception to rule 45 b ..... in this behalf by warrant of the central government.16. the central government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under section 141 of the border security force act made rules known as the border security force rules, 1969. some of the provisions of the rules are in the following terms:14a ranks-(1) the officers and other members of the ..... invalid.15. before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties, we may notice the following provisions of the border security force act.'2(1)(f) 'commandant', when used in any provision of this act with reference to any unit of the force, means the officer whose duty it is under the rules to discharge with respect to that unit, the functions .....

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 .....

Shiv Parshad Pandey Vs. C.B.i. Through Director, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR934; 2003CriLJ1710; JT2003(2)SC413; 2003(2)SCALE658; (2003)11SCC508; 2003(1)LC640(SC)

..... 17 or shall affectthe jurisdiction of a criminal court to try anyoffence triable by such court as well as by asecurity force court.'11. this section authorises the border security force to arrestand initiate proceedings and punish an offender who was subject tothe act provided such person is tried for an offence under the actwithin six months after he has ceased to be subject to ..... of the same offence thediscretion to proceed or not to proceed under the bsf act lies withthe director general, or other officers specified therein withinwhose command the accused person is serving. it must be noticedherein that this section applies only to such persons who 'isserving' in the border security force and not to a person whoceases to be an officer of the bsf at .....

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

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2003(2)JCR668(Jhr)]

..... general security force court. thus, as the confirmation is not required of the court order under section 114, obvious it ..... commandant is somewhat arbitrary and illegal. consequently, it is found that against the summary security force court order (hereinafter referred to as the court order), there is no appeal because under section 114, the order of the summary security force court do not require confirmation, whereas under section 117 of the border security force act, 1968. the appeal lies to the confirming authority against the order of a .....

Sutendra Debbarma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... capacity, the offence is nothing but a civil offence for which he was tried by the security force court in terms of section 47 of the border security force act (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for short). the term civil offence is defined by section 2(d) of the act as an offence which is triable by the criminal court, section 46 of the ..... act provides that subject to the provisions of section 47, any person subject to this act who at any place in, ..... was not on active duty at the time of the incident, it may be relevant to produce hereunder section 47 of the act. '47. civil offences not triable by a security force court. - a person subject to this act who commits an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against, or of rape in relation 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 .....

Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (2004)1UPLBEC196

..... heard sri arvind srivastava for petitioner and sri deepak verma, additional standing counsel for union of india, respondents 1 to 4.2. petitioner was enrolled as constable in border security force on 5.3.2002. he completed his training in the month of december, 2002 and was posted as constable in 14th battalion in punjab. on 28.6.2002, ..... by respondent no. 4, petitioner's services have been terminated. the order states that petitioner was tried by summary security force court on 17.1.2003 for an offence committed by him under section 23 of the bsf act for 'making at the time of enrolment a wilfully false answer to a question set forth in the prescribed ..... no. 4 vide letter dated 27.3.2002 directed answering respondent to verify the character and antecedents of sri raj kumar, the petitioner and submit report to him. acting upon the said letter of the then district magistrate, the then senior superintendent of police, gorakhpur got the character and antecedents of raj kumar son of ram laut .....

State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Pantha Chatterjee and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2003SC3569; (SCSuppl)2004(1)CHN112; JT2003(5)SC448; 2003(5)SCALE173; (2003)6SCC469; 2004(1)SLJ135(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1835

..... petitions before the calcutta high court complaining that they were discriminated vis-a-vis other regular boarder wing home guards of the west bengal and the border security force personnel, as the writ petitioner-respondents had also been performing similar duties and discharging same responsibilities. the learned single judge considering all the material on ..... naik, naik, platoon havaldar. the state government, accordingly, as per scheme of government of india, recruited full time and part time border wing home guards, under the west bengal home guards act, 1962.9. the main plank to oppose the writ petitions filed by the respondents has been that 'home guards' is a voluntary ..... high court for the following reasons:1. the petitioners have been members of a voluntary organization;2. they were recruited under the state home guard act by the state machinery;3. master and servant relationship of the petitioners existed only with the state government; and4. central government was liable to bear .....

Ex. Const. Ravinder Mohan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003IIAD(Delhi)123; 103(2003)DLT39; 2003(68)DRJ37; 2003(1)SLJ224(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR296

..... account of the aforesaid mental ailment with which he was suffering from, his application seeking to resign from service could not have been acted upon and in view of rule 25 of the border security force rules, 1969, he could not have been discharged from service without his medical examination by a medical board.2. the petitioner ..... was communicated to the petitioner vide letter of even date. thereafter, in may, 2001, the wife of the petitioner also represented to the director general, border security force for reinstatement of the petitioner or in the alternative for grant of retiral benefits to him and his family and also for her compassionate appointment in place of ..... fetched and without any sound basis. it having been a case of discharge from service on a notice for resignation from service, rule 25 of the border security force rules, 1969 has no application to the facts of the case. it was not the respondents who took initiative in discharging the petitioner from service on medical .....

indra Gyan Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2003(4)AWC3429

..... petitioner will be given pensionary benefits. in this condition petitioner submitted his resignation on 21.8.1996, on the same day he met the acting commandant, 38 battalion border security force. the resignation was accepted on 9.9.1996 with direction that petitioner shall be allowed to draw pension and petitioner's pensionary benefits as are ..... amount received at the time of discharge from the service.4. in the counter-affidavit of sri p. k. misra, deputy inspector general, sector headquarters, border security force, nagaland and manipur, it is stated that present writ petition is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action of this petition ..... has arisen within jurisdiction of this hon'ble court. petitioner was discharged from his service after he resigned from border security force while he was posted outside of the state of u. p. it is further submitted petitioner has not challenged his discharge order which was passed .....