Court : Delhi
Reported in : 23(1983)DLT482
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The brief facts are that on the night between 13th and 14th February, 1975 an explosion of high intensity took place in a Jhuggi of Mani Ram in Prem Nagar (Baljit Nagar) P.S. Patel Nagar in which three persons were injured. Investigation disclosed that a number of persons were engaged in the manufacture of bombs in Delhi. Some of the accused were disgruntled ex-employees of the Food Corporation of India and wanted to blow up its buildings. The ring leader Uttam Mandal made a disclosure statement that on 8-2-1975, 3 Kg. of Potash and 2 Kg. of Mandal were purchased for Rs. 490.00 by him from the shop of accused Avdesh Kumar in Mirzapur, U.P. On 2-3-1975 Uttam Mandal led the police to his shop where Suresh Chand and Avdesh Kumar were found sitting. Nothing incriminating was recovered from him. However, by his order of 14-7-1982 the Additional Sessions Judge held that Avdesh Kumar was not in conspiracy but was prima facie guilty of an offence under Section 6 of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2021
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of three Habeas Corpus Petitions, they being H.C.P. Nos. 1495, 1496 and 1497 of 1999, H.C.P. No. 1495 of 1999 has been filed to challenge the order of detention passed, on 30-4-1999, by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, in respect of one Zahir Hussain @ Scientist. The order is passed under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act with a view to prevent the said Zahir Hussain @ Scientist from acting prejudicial to the public order. H.C.P. No. 1496 of 1999 is in respect of one Sheik Mohideen and the order has been passed on the same day and by the same authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. H.C.P. No. 1497 of 1999 is in respect of one Mohammed Kamil, in whose case also the order of detention has been passed by the same authority on the same date. Since the facts pertaining to all the three detenus are common and since the learned counsel has also chosen to address common arguments, we are disposing of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE4H DAY OF AUGUST201413TH SRAVANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 4353 of 2014 --------------------------- CRIME NO. 257/2014 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA ..... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ YESHPAL, AGED41YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN, NIRAPIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.SAM RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0408-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. Ramakrishnan, J.============================== Crl.M.C.No.4353 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 04th day of August, 2014. ORDER This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner who is arrayed as second accused in Crime No.257/2014 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1993(I)OLR61
A. Pasayat, J.1. The petitioners call in question the legality of the order dated 3-1-7-1991 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri (in short, the 'SOM') taking cognizance under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, I860 (in short, IPC) and Under Section 9(b)of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 (in short the Explosives Act) According to the petitioner, the teamed SDJM was not justified in taking cognizance, much less on the basis of a motion mad by the Investigating Officer, to take cognizance Under Section 307, IPC, This submission is made in Khe background that charge-sheet was submitted Under Sections 336/337/326/34, IPC, and Section 9 (b) of the Explosives Act. It appears that pursuant to the order taking-cognisance, nonbailable warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioners. By order dated 2-12-199'l in Misc. Case No. 463 of 1991, this Court had directed that if the petitioners moved for bail the same was to be considered without taking into cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1991)ACC306; 1991ACJ777; AIR1991SC1769; JT1991(3)SC133; (1991)100PLR359; 1991(2)SCALE92; (1991)3SCC530; [1991]3SCR26a; 1991(2)LC290(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. The questions raised for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal involve the interpretation of the expression 'arising out of the use of a motor vehicle' contained in Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. On October 29, 1987, at about 3 A.M., there was a collision between a petrol tanker bearing Registration No. MKL-7461 and a truck bearing Registration No. MEH-4197 on the National Highway No. 4 near village Kavatha, in District Satara, Maharashtra. The petrol tanker was proceeding from Pune side to Bangalore whereas the truck was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the said collision, the petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from the highway. As a result of the overturning of the petrol tanker, the petrol contained in it leaked out and collected nearby. At about 7.15 A.M., an explosion took place in the said petrol tanker result...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)816; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)356; 2000CriLJ2223; 85(2000)DLT389(SC); JT2000(4)SC594; 2000(3)SCALE273; (2000)9SCC13; 2000(2)LC1080(SC)
1. Accused have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10/15th December, 1999 passed by the Designated Judge-I, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 10/94 convicting accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'TADA Act') and under Section of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 5 of TADA Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. It is the prosecution case that on 12th October, 1993, a secret information was received by the ACP Shri D.S. Naurawat (PW-11), who was posted in the Operations Cell, that some members of the Muslim Mujahiddin, a terrorist outfit organisation of Jammu & Kashmir, were hiding somewhere in South Delhi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1672; 1991CriLJ2189; 1991(2)Crimes671(SC); 1991(1)SCALE846; (1991)3SCC206; 1991(2)LC522(SC)
1. This appeal is filed under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short 'Tata') against the judgment of the Designated Court, Khammam. The appellants were found guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and under Sections 3 and 3(2)(ii) of the 'Tata' for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the above offence in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They were also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A- l is also convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offences under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution case is as follows. 2. These appellants along with another accused A-3 were tried for the above said offence. It is alleged that all these accused are the organising cadre of the CPI(ML) Group lead by Sri Kondappa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2376; RLW2010(1)Raj449
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These four criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellants, and one criminal leave to appeal, on behalf of the State, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Mansingh Death case), Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 8/98, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:Accused Under ImprisonmentSection1. Abdul Mateen 14 of the To undergo 5 years RIForeigners and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;Act, 1946 in default, to furtherundergo 1 years' SI4 of PDPP To undergo 10 years RIAct and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI456 IPC To undergo 3 years RIand a fine of Rs. 3,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 6 months' SI307/120B To undergo 10 years' RIIPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI435/120B To undergo 7 years RIIPC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR504; 1999(4)BomCR566
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The writ petitioners in this case challenge the setting up of a Cryogenic Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) storage and handling facility in close vicinity of their establishments, on several grounds including ground of mala fides on the part of the statutory authorities in granting the requisite licence and clearances and also on the ground that the said facility is hazardous environmentally and violative of the Coastal Region Zone Regulations (C.R.Z.).2. The petitioners are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, belonging to the Tata Group of Companies and doing the business of generation, transmission and bulk distribution of electricity in their area of supply in Greater Mumbai under licence granted by the State Government under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.3. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra; respondent No. 2 is the Bombay Municipal Corporation; respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are different statutory authorities exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR3019
Navin Sinha, J.1. These three criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Banka, in Sessions Trial No. 897 of 2002.2. Death Reference No. 8 of 2008 arises out of Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2008 alone. Seventeen persons were put on trial. Nine have been acquitted, and eight convicted.3. Shaukat Mian has been convicted under Section 302, 148 of I.P.C., Section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced to death, in addition to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. Rahim Mian has been convicted under Sections 307, 302/148/149 and 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/4 (each) of Explosive Substances Act, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 of I.P.C., ten years rigorous imprisonment with fin...
Tag this Judgment!