Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1059; [2007(2)JCR13(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal arises against the judgment dated 27th February, 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2002, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant No. 1, Pran Yadav, for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The said appellant, Pran Yadav, was further convicted for the offence under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act. However, no separate sentence was passed under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Other Appellant Nos. 2 to 7 were convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, each, for the said offence. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1988P&H95
D.S. Tewatia, C.J. 1. Petitioner Smt. Bimal Kaur Khalsa wife of Sardar Beant Sing deceased. has through Civil Writ Petition No. 3761 of 1986, question the vires of some of the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. 2. The vires of some of the provisions of the Said Act have similarly been challenged through Civil writ Petitions Nos. 1629 and 4074 of 1986 and Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 827, 884 and 888 of 1996. 3. The provisions of the said Act, the vires whereof had been challenged are Section 3(2)(i). S. 7, S. 8. sub-section (2) of S. 9, sub-section (2). sub-sec: (2) and sub-section (3) of S. 13, S. 16 and cls. (a) and (b) of sub-sec.(2), sub-section (3). sub-section (4) and clause (b) of sub-section (5) of S. 17 of the Act. 4. Soon after the judgment in this case was reserved. the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Ordinance. 1987 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance of 1987 was, promulgated, which came into force w.e.f. 24th ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS RELATING TO LIFE SENTENCE PART-2 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1178 of 2007 Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai ...Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1179 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.419 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1127-1128 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1252-1253 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1365 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1440 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1441 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2008 AND Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.616 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 979-980 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 633 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 651-652 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 653 AND 65.of 2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 556 of 2010 ----------- (Against the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2010 and order of sentence dated 05.05.2010 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2007) ----------- Santu Singh @ Abhishek Jee @ Vinoy Jee @ Abhishek Kumar @ Abhishek Singh, son of Rumeshwar Singh, resident of village- Sikid, PO & PS Balumath, District- Latehar ... Appellant --Versus The State of Jharkhand . . Respondent For Appellant : M/s. S.K.Murari & Rohit, Advocates For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. PRESENT The Honble Mr. Justice R.R. Prasad The Honble Mr. Justice R.N.Verma C.A.V. ON:27. 01/2016 Delivered on 09/02/2016 R.N. Verma, J.Calling in question the legality of the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2010 and order of sentence dated 05.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-II, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 25(1-b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR546
Lokur, J.1. The seven appellants were tried along with nine others by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur with the aid of assessors for criminal conspiracy to do certain acts with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working of factories, if necessary by use of bombs, for committing a riot, in pursuance of that conspiracy, in the ring-frame department of the mills of the Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co., commonly known as Old Mills, some of them carrying bombs with them and for causing, in the course of the riot, injuries to several persons.2. The assessors were of opinion that all the accused were not guilty and the learned' Judge accepted their opinion as regards accused Nos. 7 to 12 and 14, 15 and 16 and acquitted them, but disagreeing with them he convicted the seven appellants of various offences and passed different sentences on them.3. The prosecution relied upon incidents which took place on three different days. On September 24, 1942, there was a meeting in Sathe's Chawl an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2474; (1973)2SCC449; [1974]1SCR266
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Khashaba Maruti Shelke (33) along with eight others was tried in the court of Sessions Judge Sangli for offences under Section 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 333/34 Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of Arms Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 27 Arms Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 3 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 4 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 5 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 6 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. In the alternative, there were charges against the accused for the above offences read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other eight accused and convicted the appellant for offences under Section 302 Indian Penal Code on two counts for causing the death of Head Constable Yesade (45) and Smt. Balkabai (70) and sentenced him to death on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
(1) This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred for quashment of entire proceedings pending in Session Trial No.25/2010 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar for the offence punishable under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 which has arisen out of the Crime No.135/2009 dated 09.04.2009 registered at Police Station Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) (2) As per the prosecution case, on 09.04.2009 at about 08:05 pm a truck bearing number MP09 KB3627 was searched by the police. During search, 320 bags of Ammonium Nitrate were seized vide seizure memo dated 09.04.09. Relevant documents of registration, permit, fitness etc. were also seized. Initially, Crime was registered at outpost Rajghat, District Ashok Nagar and thereafter original FIR was registered at Crime No.135/2009 at Police Station Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Subs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 36(1988)DLT430
Leila Seth, J. (1) Mr. Gupta says that he is pressing this petition only in respect of the order dated 4th January. 1988 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), Delhi. He further says that he will file a reply to the show cause notice dated 5th October, 1988 issued by the Controller of Explosives North Circle, Agra and agitate his grievances pertaining to that matter before the said authority. (2) Rule D.E. (3) Counsels are agreed that the matter be heard and disposed of here and now. (4) The petitioners are wholesale dealers of fire works. Admittedly, they obtained a license as far back as 1979 which was renewed from time to time. It is not disputed that the petitioner's license is in force. (5) On 7th December, 1987, a fire broke out in the petitioner's shop bearing No. 49A, Central Market, Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. Police Station was informed about the fire. An intimation was also sent to the Deputy Chief Controller, Explosives, Agra and Controller of Explosives, Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC182
1. Both these appeals arise from Order-in-Original No. 7/2000, dated 27-10-2000 by which the Commissioner, on remand by CEGAT vide its final order Nos. 567-568/99, dated 11-3-99, has re-confirmed the duty and penalties in terms of his order. While the CEGAT remanding the matter had already confirmed penalty on shortages found in the premises and for non-maintenance of F-4 Registers. Penalty on Shri Rajagopal, the Partner of the firm was confirmed for not maintaining the registers and on the allegation of shortages. However, on the question of clandestine removal and on the question of the quantum of duty confirmed in terms of one single notebook recovered from the appellants' premises, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration and to re-consider all the pleas in the light of the submissions made before the Tribunal and also in the light of the settled law that a mere seizure of notebook without examining its scribe cannot be the criteria for confirming the demands without any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1526/2011 Awdhesh Pratap Singh and another VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 16th day of April, 2013) The applicants have preferred the present revision against the judgment dated 9.8.2011 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in criminal appeal No.135/2010, whereby the matter was remanded to the trial Court for retrial of the case, whereas the applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 304- A of IPC and section 5 (3) (a) of Indian Explosive Act, 1984, vide judgment dated 12.7.2010 passed by the learned JMFC, Chhatarpur (Shri Rajesh Devaliya) in c...
Tag this Judgment!