Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2772; 2009CriLJ3952; JT2009(8)SC250; 2009(8)SCALE642; (2009)7SCC480:2009AIRSCW4202
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that the order dated 4.9.2006 passed by learned Special Judge in bail application No. 32 of 2006 filed in remand application No. 17 of 2006 suffers from no infirmity.3. Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 2006 was filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short the `Act').4. The bail application was preferred by the accused Nos. 5 to 8 challenging the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Special Court thereby granting second extension of 15 days to complete the investigation and to file the charge-sheet. The bail application came to be rejected. It had been prayed in the appeal that the appellants be released on bail in LAC No. 3 of 2006 on default of the prosecution in completing the investigation within the extended period granted upto 21.8.2006. Whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2006 filed by the original accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj153
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Allahnoor under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh, and arises in the following circumstances:2. The applicant is a person carrying on trade and business of manufacturing file-works, and sale or gun-powder at Nimbahera. In that connection, he applied to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh for a no-objection certificate under Rule 85(3) of the Explosives Rules as he desired to obtain a license for 200 pounds of gun-powder from the Chief Inspector of Explosives. The District Magistrate, however, rejected the application without even looking at the site where the applicant proposed to carry on the business, and gave, no reasons to the applicant for such rejection.The applicant, therefore, has come up to this Court and his contention is that he is being deprived of his occupation, and thus his fundamental right granted under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has been violat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT497
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 is the accused in crime No. 282/2009 and petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010 is the accused in crime No. 283/2009 of Nattukal police station registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. They are Annexure-I F.I.R. shows that petitioners were arrested based on the confession statement of Hamsa, S/o. Kunhayamu, who is the accused in crime No. 280/2009 of Nattukal police station, registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. The confession statement is to the effect that the said accused purchased explosives from the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2003 during March 2007 and if he is taken to the place, he will show the shop and the person who sold it and the said Hamsa was taken to the shop of petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 on 12.12.2009 at 2 p.m. and shown the petitioner and he was arrested and case was registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. Annexure-I F.I.R. in Crl.M.C. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. The present appeals arise from the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.6.2008 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Munger. Death Reference No. 13 of 2008 arises also out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence as required by Section 366 Cr.P.C. Six persons were charged under Sections 302/34. 120B, 225 and 504 of the Penal Code, 3 & 4 Explosives Substances Act. Three have been acquitted.2. Appellant Mahendra Ram and Munna Ram have been convicted and sentenced to death under Sections 302/34, 120B of the Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. Accused Upendra Ram has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine and in default to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 302/34, 120B IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 IPC. He has further been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act to run con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006BomCR(Cri)581
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (henceforth, 'POTA' for short), challenging the order dated 18.1.2005, delivered by Special Judge under POTA, Mumbai, in bail application No. 14 of 2004, arising out of POTA Case No. 2 of 2003, by which learned Judge rejected bail plea of the appellant-accused.Although by virtue of section 1(6), POTA is deemed to have come into force on 24th day of October 2001 and was to remain in force for the period of three years from the date of its commencement, i.e. upto 23.10.2004, in view of clause (b) to said sub-section (6) of Section 1, which reads;1(6) ...but its expiry under the operation of this sub-section shall not affect:-(a) ...(b) any right, privilege, application or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under this Act, or....,learned APP has not challenged maintainability of the appeal under Section 34 of the POTA. This is because, the appellant-accused was arrested while the Act was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD228; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)565; 1999(2)ALT325; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)9; 1999CriLJ3566
1. One M. Balakrishna Reddy who was the husband of the petitioner in Crl. RC No.630 of 1998. M. Venkata Lakshmi and M. Radhakrishna Reddy were facing prosecution in Crime No.33 of 1995 under Section 498-A and 406 of 1PC when a Government order being G.O. Rt. No.2087 was issued by the Home Department on 7th August, 1997. Acting on this order the Public Prosecutor moved an application before the trial Court for withdrawal from the prosecution and the trial Court passed an order on 19-9-1997 permitting withdrawal of prosecution. The order of trial Court has been challenged in Crl. RC No.630 of 1998. After the Government order dated 7-8-1997 had been acted upon and the trial Court had permitted withdrawal of the prosecution, the Government passed another order being G.O. Rt. No.2717 dated 21st October, 1997 withdrawing the earlier Government Order. This Government Order has been challenged in WP No.28309 of 1997 by the persons who are respondents in the revision petition.2. Counters have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2210
A.S. Nehra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 12-10-1992 by which a charge under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been framed by the Designated Court.2. The prosecution story is as under:--Sub-Inspector Rajinder Kumar along with ASI Babu Ram and three other constables were present on the Canal Bank in connection with the investigation of case FIR No. 72 of 1992, when the petitioner was found there. His search was carried out and, from the right pocket of his pant, one pistol, 12 bore country made, was found loaded. It was unloaded and one 12 bore cartridge were taken out. Since the petitioner had kept the pistol and the cartridges without licence in his possession, therefore, a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was registered on 4-6-1992.3. Mr. Gulab Singh Advocate, learned counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petition is filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the transfer of the accused persons from judicial custody in a case of one police station to police custody of another police station by exercising the powers to issue production warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. has been challenged.2. To state in brief, the petitioner's husband Vernon Stanislaus Gonsalves and his friend Shridhar Krishnan Shrinivasan, both residents of Mumbai, were arrested on 19.8.2007 by respondent No. 3 - Anti-Terrorism Squad, Kalachowki, Mumbai in Crime No. 10/2007 under Section 120-B, and 121A of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, Indian Explosives Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2004. On 20.8.2007, they were produced before the Holiday Magistrate and were remanded to police custody till 22.8.2007. On 22.8.2007, the 2nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai, extended ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1991CriLJ724
ORDERA.P. Chowdhri, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 26 dated 16-11-1989 relating to Police Station Sadhaura, District Ambala, Under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The case against him is that he kept in his possession one country made pistol without any licence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, rejected his petition for bail by order dated 18-11-1989 on the ground that the facts constituted an offence Under Section 5 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, which is exclusively triable by the Designated Court.2. It is not disputed that the whole of the State of Haryana has been declared as notified area under the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, which enures under the present Act of 1987.3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no allegation that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 25 of the Arm Act, 'with intent to aid any terrorist or disruptionist' and,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)610; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)37; JT2002(6)SC486; 2002(6)SCALE238; (2002)7SCC334; [2002]SUPP2SCR31
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. No religion propagates terrorism or hatred. Love for all is the basic foundation on which almost all religions are founded. Unfortunately, some fanatics who have distorted views of religion spread messages of terror and hatred. They do not understand and realize what amount of damage they do to the society. Sometimes people belonging to their community or religion also become victims. As a result of these fanatic acts of some misguided people, innocent lives are lost, distrust in the minds of communities replaces love and affection for others. The devastating effect of such dastardly acts is the matrix on which the present case to which these appeals relate rests. On 16th March, 1993, just before the stroke of mid-night, people in and around B.B. Ganguly Street in the Bow Bazar Area of Calcutta heard deafening sounds emanating from thundering explosions which resulted in total demolition of a building and partial demolition of two other adjacent buildings situated ...
Tag this Judgment!