Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)766; 2008(56)BLJR3064; 2008CriLJ4562; JT2008(10)SC164; 2008(12)SCALE420; 2008AIRSCW6210; 2008(4)Crimes16; 2008(5)LH(SC)3768; 2008AIRSCW6210; 2008(4)Crimes16; 2008(6)Supreme677
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants who were appellant Nos. 5 and 6 before it and before the trial Court they were accused Nos. 5 and 6. Before the trial Court there were six accused persons. After finding them guilty of various offences the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed sentences in the following manner:A-1 is found guilty of charges under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. A-2 to A-6 are found guilty of charge under Section 148 IPC and each one of them is sentenced to 2 years RI. A1, A-2 and A-4 are found guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and each one of them is sentenced to life imprisonment. A3, A5 and A6 are found guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 and each one of them is sentenced to life imprisonment. A3 is found guilty of the charge under Section 307 IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2006(II)OLR40
ORDERM.M. Das, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2003 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.2. The facts as revealed in the writ petition leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of LPG at Jajpur Town by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPC Ltd.'). He has applied for grant of licence for possession of cylinder under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the same was obtained and also purchased a land and made huge investment by taking land from different sources. After receiving the letter of appointment from the Regional Manager, HPC Ltd. and on execution of the required agreement, the petitioner commenced his business at Jajpur Town. It is alleged that before the petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor for Jajpur Town, the opp. party No. 6-M/s. Devi Gas, a Proprietor concern which is a distributor of LPG under Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
W.P.Nos.1912 and 2870 of 2011:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 23.6.2010 made in P.A.O.Nos.4, 3 of 2010 passed by the first respondent confirmed in the order dated 12.11.2010 made in O.C.Nos.56, 57 of 2010 on the file of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to hear the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner in O.C.No.58 of 2010.W.P.No.13421 of 2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the Provisional Attachment Order No.02/2011 dated 28.3.2011 in File No.ECIR/01/CZ/PMLA/2009 (SKD) and quash the same.W.P.No.22062 of 2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(3)KarLJ64
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In all these petitions, petitioners are persons who claim ownership of agricultural lands located at different places, one such being at Rechamballi Village, presently, Chamarajanagar District which is also described as an erstwhile old Mysore area and such lands which are described as patta lands and the owners of such lands being also known as 'pattadars'.2. It is the admitted position that all petitioners are carrying on quarrying activities which does amount to mining operation as understood under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'MMDR Act'), Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as also the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.3. Petitioners who extract the mineral, particularly, black granite or the pink granite from the quarries, after cutting boulders and rocks into requisite size, want to transport the same to a port wherefrom it is being exported to foreign countries. Such transportation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD216; 2001(3)ALT131; 2001(135)ELT58(AP)
ORDERS.R Nayak, J 1. This writ petition is directo), against the Public Notice No.9/2001 Customs dated 3-2-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Guntur (the Commissioner, for brevity), the first respondent herein. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956, in the year 1989 and having its registered office at Plot No.1497, J-Block, 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. According to the petitioner, it is involved in the business of clearing and forwarding the goods, which arrive at various ports and also those, which are meant for export to other countries.3. The petitioner-Company has been granted licence to act as Custom House Agent (CHA, for brevity) by the Commissioner vide CHA Licence No.5/91 (Regular) which has since been renewed vide C.No.VIII/13/5/99-Cus. Tech., dated 15-11-1999 and valid upto 25-11-2004. As per the licence issued, the licensee is authorised to transact business as Customs House Agent at ICD Reddipal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3820; 2005CriLJ3950; 122(2005)DLT194(SC); (2005)11SCC600
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The genesis of this case lies in a macabre incident that took place close to the noon time on 13th December, 2001 in which five heavily armed persons practically stormed the Parliament House complex and inflicted heavy casualties on the security men on duty. This unprecedented event bewildered the entire nation and sent shock waves across the globe. In the gun battle that lasted for 30 minutes or so, these five terrorists who tried to gain entry into the Parliament when it was in session, were killed. Nine persons including eight security personnel and one gardener succumbed to the bullets of the terrorists and 16 persons including 13 security men received injuries. The five terrorists were ultimately killed and their abortive attempt to lay a seize of the Parliament House thus came to an end, triggering off extensive and effective investigations spread over a short span of 17 days which revealed the possible involvement of the four accused persons who are ei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 73(1992)CLT513; 1992CriLJ863
B.N. Dash, J.1. All the seven appellants were tried for the offences under Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act') and Under Section 395, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur. While acquitting all the appellant of the charge Under Section 9-B of the Act, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants Under Section 395, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.2. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 1-9-1987 at about 11.30 p.m. the informant Shyam Sunder Pradhan (P.W. 1) and his family members consisting of his wife Soli Dei (not examined), his two sons Surendra Pradhan (P.W. 2) and Sridhar Pradhan (not examined), his daughter Laxmipriya (not examined) and his daughter-in-law Smt. Kataki Pradhan (P.W. 3) went to sleep after dinner. While P.Ws. 1 and 3 slept on the oute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1256
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 27-2-89 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sthagarh in a case under Section 457/395/34, I.P.C. and Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. The appellants were found guilty for the offences of lurking house trespass and dacoity and convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years each.2. Prosecution case in brief. On 15/16-4-88 at about 1 a.m. in the night, the appellants along with 7 to 8 persons forcibly entered the house of Ananta Charan Acharya (P. W. 1) of village Kamarpur Sasan and after assaulting him, his wife and daughter took away gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs. 1050/-and decamped with the booty. It was also alleged that they exploded bombs to scare the neighbours as a result of which the neighbours could not come to the spot. P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. at the Gurudijhatia Police Station at 7.30 a.m. the following morning. The Investigating Officer during i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC74; 1995CriLJ4187; JT1997(10)SC418; RLW1998(1)SC159; 1995(5)SCALE93; (1995)5SCC591a; 1995(2)LC559(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. On 26th December, 1990, the appellant was arrested by the SHO, Police Station, Nanded, in connection with FIR No. 150/90. The charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and also other accused persons for an offence under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Sections 286, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 9(B) of the Indian Explosive Act, on 19th December, 1991. The appellant is a priest. He is now in jail for more than four years and eight months continuously except for a short period of 21/2 months when he was on parole on medical grounds. The minimum sentence under Section 6 of the TADA Act is only five years.3. The appellant applied for grant of bail some time in June, 1994. Before that, the appellant had made several applications for bail, which were all rejected.4. On 18th January, 1995, the Designated Court once again rejected the bail application stating, inter alia, that no fresh ground had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Tag this Judgment!