Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 26 intoxication Page 1 of about 36,936 results (0.354 seconds)

Ashok Kumar Vs. Dg. Bsf and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... rendered him incapacitated he requested the civilian to report to coy commander. 6. considering the record of evidence, the commandant directed the petitioner's trial at a summary security force court; at which trial the petitioner pleaded guilty. 7. convicting the petitioner and with reference to the service record which showed that in the past for having ..... consumed alcohol and disobeying lawful command, the petitioner had been awarded 28 days ri in force custody, the court sentenced the petitioner to be dismissed from service against which statutory petition filed has been rejected. 8. from the facts noted herein above and ..... writ petition. 2. the backdrop facts are that on 18.3.1996 petitioner was charge sheeted for having committed an offence punishable under section 26 of the bsf act 1968. it was alleged that on 26.2.1996, petitioner was detained for dak duty at bop rania, which he did not perform and was found in .....

Const. Jaibir Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

..... report before commandant 1st bn. bsf on 15th oct 2003, for committing offences u/s 20(a) i.e. using criminal force to his superior (first charge) and section 26 intoxication (second charge) of border security force act 1968. all the three accused persons pleaded not guilty of 1st charge and guilty of 2nd charge, hence competent authority issued ..... orders to prepare record of evidence of the case by shri g.p.das, ac, 1st battalion border security force".15. it is then urged that the first charge ..... is vague inasmuch as the role of the accused is not assigned/described in the charge. it is urged that it has not been stated that the accused acted with a common intention or a common object or .....

Md. Abdul Sattar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... the petitioner assails the order dated 11.11.2000 issued by the respondent no. 5 dismissing him from service and the proceeding of the connected summary security force court at headquarter 192 bn. border security force, radhabari, p.o. bhuikidangapara, dist.- jalpaiguri, west bengal.2. the facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows :-the petitioner joined the ..... reported in (1955) 2 scr 1196, the apex court also held that where, though the authority is located outside the jurisdiction of the high court, the impugned illegal act or order is done or made by an agent or subordinate officer of that authority who is resident within the jurisdiction of the high court, the court can proceed ..... and while serving as cook no. 90-192128 under 192 bn. bsf he was suddenly served with charge sheet dated 9.11.2000 under section 26 of the bsf act, 1968. the charge against him was framed as follows :-'intoxicationin that heat bn. hq. radhabari on 07.11.2000at abort 2100 hrs. ras foundin a state of .....

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 .....

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 .....

Ex. Const. Kailash Chander Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... my shop, some scuffle was taking place. questions by the court a-1 i could make out from the physical bearing and the on going conversation that they were from border security force. a-2 i can confidently say that the accused was drunk by the way of his stammering voice, uncontrolled physical movements and abnormal behavior. whereas, another person who was ..... 1) to consume cold drink and sweets. at this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the charges leveled against the petitioner; they are extracted as below: ist charge bsf act 1968.sec-26 intoxication in that he, at bangoan on 05.09.05 at 1400 hrs was found in a state of intoxication. iind charge bsf ..... act 1968.section-40 an omission prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force in that he, while at 1400 hrs at bangaon alongwith no. 99722675 constable mahavir singh created a scene in public by forcing mrs. aliya mondal w/o md sahidul mondal r/o chakla distt-24 .....

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 .....

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 .....

Jagraj Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... per sub-rule (6) of said rule the said provisions do not apply if the trial is before a summary security force court.3. petitioner has been tried at a summary security force court.4. the record of the summary security force court shows that after the petitioner was brought before the court and arraignment took place, 2 charges were read out and ..... guilty.5. however, we note that the plea of guilt has not been signed by the petitioner.6. learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the summary security force court trial evidences that notwithstanding plea of guilt being noted qua charge no.2, evidence has been led on said charge as well. thus, counsel submits that the ..... 9.4.2002 for committing offences under section 26 of bsf act 1968 i.e. intoxication.(f) 7 days ri awarded in force custody on 10.07.2002 for committing an offence under section 19(d) of bsf act 1968.(g) further the petitioner while on active duty on border with his coy/platoon committed an offence under section 19(d) .....

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- .....