Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009(171)LC254(Madras); 2010(249)ELT324(Mad)
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The above writ appeals are directed against the common order passed in W.P. Nos. 336 and 341 of 2009, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. In W.P. Nos. 10330, 12250 and 13366 of 2009, the petitioners seek to quash the public notice No. 140/2008 dated 31.12.2008 and to direct the first respondent therein to accept the candidature of the petitioners for the grant of licence under Regulation 9(1) of the CHARL, 2004 so as to act as Customs House Agent.3. Since the issues involved in the writ petitions as well as in the writ appeals are identical, both the writ petitions and writ appeals are heard together and this Common Judgment is passed.4. (i) The case of the appellants and the writ petitioners is that they are engaged in the work of clearance of goods through Customs for the past several years and they are claiming that they have all passed the examination prescribed as per Regulation No. 9 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle learned senior counsel appeared for A-117, A-118, A-124 respectively and Mr. Raval, learned ASG duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel appeared for the respondent-CBI.2) The above said appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2006 and 31.07.2007respectively by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993.Charges:3) A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2623; 1995CriLJ517; 1994(2)Crimes916(SC); JT1994(4)SC255; 1994(3)SCALE105; (1994)4SCC602; [1994]Supp1SCR360; 1994(2)LC786(SC)
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. In this batch of criminal appeals and special leave petitions (criminal) the three meaningful questions which require our consideration are: (1) when can the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. 1987. (hereinafter referred to as the TADA) be attracted? (2) Is the 1993 Amendment, amending Section 167(2) of the CrPC by modifying Section 20(4)(b) and adding a new provision as 20(4)(b), applicable to the pending case i.e. is retrospective in operation? And (3) what is the true ambit and scope of Section 20(4) and Section 20(8) of TADA in the matter of grant of bail to an accused brought before the Designated Court and the factors which the Designated Court has to keep in view while dealing with an application for grant of Bail under Section 20(4) and for grant of extension of time to the prosecution for further investigation under Clause (bb) of Section 20(4) and incidently whether the conditions contained in Section 20(8) TADA co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)KCCR785,RLW2010(1)SC822,2010(2)SCALE467,2010(2)LC1047(SC):(2010)3SCC571
D.K. Jain, J.1. The issue which has been referred for the opinion of the Constitution Bench is whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI'), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short 'the Special Police Act'), to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State Government.2. For the determination of the afore-stated important legal issue, it is unnecessary to dilate on the facts obtaining in individual cases in this bunch of civil appeals/special leave petitions/writ petitions and a brief reference to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 6249- 6250 of 2001, noticed in the referral order dated 8th November, 2006, would suffice. These are: One Abdul Rahaman Mondal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the complainant') along with a large n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom103; (1957)59BOMLR491; 1958CriLJ352; ILR1957Bom487
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, acquitting the respondent Ismail Shakur Morani who was charged with having committed an offence under Section 5(3) of the Indian Explosive Act read with Rule 81 of the Explosive Rules, 1940.2. On the 24th August, 1954 an explosion occurred in the Morani Fire Works at Andheri. Nineteen lives were lost as a result of the explosion. Several workers received injuries. One Nam-deo Dharma was also injured and his right leg had to be amputed. The respondent is the owner of this factory. He possessed two licences under the Indian Explosives Act. In this case we are concerned only with one of those licences. It was a licence for manufacturing, possessing and selling 200 lbs. of fire works at a time. This licence was dated the 12th May, 1947. It was renewable annually and it was valid up to the 31st March, 1955. In this case we are concerned with condition No. 11 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC743; 2007AIRSCW7897; 2008(1)Crimes82; 2008(2)KCCRSN104
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2007 of Designated Court, Kapurthala at Jalandhar in TADA Sessions Case No. 4 of 2006 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and has been sentenced to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.3.1992 Kamaljit Singh, SHO, Santokh Singh, SI and some other police personnel were going from village Kukar Pind to village Raipur in connection with investigation of a case bearing FIR No. 31 under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA'). When they reached on Byen Bridge in village Kukar Pind, they saw a person coming on foot. On seeing the police party he tried to run away but he was apprehended ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against thefinal orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on variousdates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') forBombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993. These appealshave been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against theirconviction and sentence and by the CBI for confirmation of the deathsentence and against the acquittal of some of the accused persons.2) Brief facts:The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After itsdemolition, violence broke out throughout the country. In order to takerevenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim, aresident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in thecity of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007BomCR(Cri)847
N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884(Act, for short) for having been found in possession of 9 non electrical detonators and 31 electrical detonators(item Nos. 25 to 28), 26 percussion caps(item Nos. 20 and 24) of panchanama Exh.C12 which are explosives as defined under Section 4(d) of the Act. 2. The accused was charged and tried under Sections 3, 5 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in addition to Section 9B(1)(a) and (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, with the allegation that at 13.00 hours on 1412001, PSI Banudas Dessai/PW14 who at the relevant time was attached to Vasco Police Station had received reliable information that the accused was in possession of illegal fire arms and consequent to the said information the house of the accused was raided and the accused was found with a rifle, revolver, live cartridges, empty cartridges, bull...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3646; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)922; 1999CriLJ4573; 1999(3)Crimes243(SC); JT1999(7)SC191; 1999(6)SCALE20; (2000)1SCC498; [1999]Supp2SCR693
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. The appellant-convict has filed this appeal against his conviction under Sections 302, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(a)(b) of the Explosive Act, by the Designated Court No. III, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi which really is under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. He has been sentenced under Section 302 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs. Out of which one lakh each is to be paid to the nearest relatives of three deceased persons. In the case of default of this non-payment, he shall also undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a further period of three years. He is also sentenced RI for a period of three years under Section 324 IPC with a fine of Rs. 20,000. Out of which Rs. 10,000 each is to be paid to the two injured persons. In the case of default he has further to undergo RI for a period of 6 months. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 9(b)(2) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom147; (1957)59BOMLR485; 1958CriLJ489; ILR1957Bom480
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay and it is an appeal from the Judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Bombay, acquitting the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence under Section 5, Sub-section (3) of the Indian Explosives Act read with Rule 81 of the Explosives Rules, 1940,2. On 24-8-1954, at about 2.45 O'clock in the afternoon an explosion occurred in the Morani Fire Works situated at Andheri, aS a result of that explosion, 19 lives were lost and some workers sustained injuries. One of the injured persons was Namdeo Dharma whose right leg had to be amputated. The respondent is the owner of the Morani Fire Works. He was holding two licences under the Indian Explosives Act. In this appeal we are concerned with the first licence. It was a licence for manufacturing possessing and selling 200 Lbs. of fire works. This licence was dated 12-5-1947. It was renewable annually and it was to be valid upto 31-3-1955. This licence ...
Tag this Judgment!