Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS RELATING TO DEATH SENTENCE PART-1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 of 2007 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.609-610 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.628-629 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.637-638 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.365 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.864-865 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.941-942 of 2008 AND Death Reference Case No.1 of 2011 ******** REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 OF 200.Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra thr., CBI, Bombay .... Respondent(s) With Batch JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against the final orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on various dates by the Presiding Offic...
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 : Orissa
Reported in : [2006]147STC231(Orissa)
A.K. Parichha, J.1. Both the S.J.C and the S.T. REV. arise out of references made by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'). Since identical disputes are involved in the references, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The cases relate to assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 to 1983-84, 1989-90 and 1990-91 in respect of assessee, M/s. IDL Industries (formerly IDL Chemicals Ltd.), a company under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Kukatpalli, Andhra Pradesh, engaged in manufacturing explosives, detonators and accessories and holding licence under the Explosives Act, 1884. It has a manufacturing unit at Sonaparbat near Rourkela in Orissa which is also registered under both the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle, Rourkela. M/s. IDL is a regular supplier of its products to differ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1996CriLJ334
A. Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals are interlinked as they are directed against the same judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1-5-1992 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in S.T. No. 249 of 1991. Since the points for determination are common, this judgment shall govern both the appeals.2. The appellants, also described hereinafter as accused, faced trial before the learned Assistant Session Judge, Jagatsinghpur on the accusation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 457/395/392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), and under Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 (in short, the 'Explosives Act'). It was alleged that they along with others committed lurking house trespass by night by entering into the house of informant Mukunda Rath (P.W. 49), and committed dacoity with deadly weapons, and were in possession of explosive substances which were used at the time of commission of dacoity. Though accusations related to a number...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.349 of 1994, arising out of Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.75 of 1994. By the said order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has refused to add charges under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908.2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of this petitioner, a case vide Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.75 of 1994 was registered on 8.5.1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 452,324,307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. In the F.I.R., the petitioner alleged that on 8.5.1994 in the morning at about 8.00 A.M. unknown accused persons entered into the house of the petitioner and exploded bomb and three persons of the informant side were assaulted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(4)SC294; RLW2003(3)SC424; 2003(4)SCALE402; (2003)9SCC673; 2003(2)LC993(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Designate Judge at Ajmer, Rajasthan, made in TADA Special Case No. 8 of 1992. In the said case, the appellants herein along with some other accused were charged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIC.II, New Delhi for offences under Sections 3(3) and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'), Section 120B IPC; and Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9B and 9C of the Explosive Act. After trial the Designated Court held the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Sections 3(3) and 6(1) of the TADA, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Learned Judge also held A-5 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9B(i)(b) and 9C of the Explosives Act. Based on the said conviction, he imposed a sentence of 5 y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All15; 1965CriLJ1
Uniyal, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31-8-1962 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut, acquitting Ram Pal respondent under Section 5 or the Explosive Substances Act. The respondent was tried for offences under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as also under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosives Act. He was convicted of the offence under Section 6 of the Explosives Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment but was acquitted of the charges under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well as Section 5 of the Explosives Act. While the State has acquiesced in his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosives Act it has challenged his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. The facts relating to the recovery or country made bomb material from the possession of the respondent on the night of the 8th January, 1960 have not been disputed. The report of Sri B. N. Dey, Inspector of Explosives, proved that the explosive mate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR231; 2001(1)BomCR230
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The order passed by the Returning Officer, Agrasen Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yerawada, Pune (respondent No-3 herein) on 17-6-98 rejecting the nomination form of the present petitioner for election to the managing committee of Agrasen Co-operative Bank (respondent No. 4 herein) and the order dated 26-6-98 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2 herein) confirming the order of respondent No. 3 are under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner is member of respondent . No. 4 Bank which is Urban Co-operative Bank and is notified society under section 73-IC of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The election programme for electing the managing committee members of the respondent No. 4 Society for the tenure of 1998-2003 was declared by the Registrar and the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Returning Officer. According to the election programme, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - R CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1206 OF2017C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.820 OF2017IN CRL.A. No.1206/2017 BETWEEN:1. SAYYED MOHAMMED NAUSHAD, S/O SAYED MOHAMMED IRSHAD, AGED ABOUT32YEARS, R/O SHADI MAHAL, DOOR NO.21-158-3, 1ST MAIN, SUBHASHNAGAR, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575 001.2. AHAMAD BAVA ABOOBAKKAR, S/O ABOOBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT39YEARS, R/O BELLUR, HALEANGADY, MANGALURU-574 146. APPELLANTS (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.1; BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. SAGARIKA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR APEELLANT No.2) - 2 - CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THOUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULLALA POLICE STATION, MANGALURU-575 020. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - R CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1206 OF2017C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.820 OF2017IN CRL.A. No.1206/2017 BETWEEN:1. SAYYED MOHAMMED NAUSHAD, S/O SAYED MOHAMMED IRSHAD, AGED ABOUT32YEARS, R/O SHADI MAHAL, DOOR NO.21-158-3, 1ST MAIN, SUBHASHNAGAR, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575 001.2. AHAMAD BAVA ABOOBAKKAR, S/O ABOOBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT39YEARS, R/O BELLUR, HALEANGADY, MANGALURU-574 146. APPELLANTS (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.1; BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. SAGARIKA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR APEELLANT No.2) - 2 - CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THOUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULLALA POLICE STATION, MANGALURU-575 020. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNA...
Tag this Judgment!