Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3662; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)363; 2001ALLMR(Cri)371(SC); 2001CriLJ119; 2000(4)CTC622; 2000(7)SCALE253; (2000)8SCC568; [2000]Supp4SCR287; 2001(1)LC94(SC)
1. During the wee hours on 2.11.1989 a shuddering bomb explosion took place at J.J. colony in Shakurpur (Delhi) Three persons died in the explosion almost instantaneously and 19 others were injured, some of them very seriously. The impact of the explosion was such that four adjoining multistoried houses collapsed. The investigating agency concluded that the explosion was the aftermath of stalking(sic) bombs in the house of the appellant which was done by himself in association with one of the victims (Babu Khan) and some others including the co-accused. They further found that there was a criminal conspiracy to manufacture explosive bombs to be used on an appropriate occasion. 2. The appellant Shamsher Khan was one of the four persons arraigned before a Designated Court constituted under Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 ('TADA' for short). They were charged for offences under Sections 304, 308 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 5 of the TADA an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)KCCR785,RLW2010(1)SC822,2010(2)SCALE467,2010(2)LC1047(SC):(2010)3SCC571
D.K. Jain, J.1. The issue which has been referred for the opinion of the Constitution Bench is whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI'), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short 'the Special Police Act'), to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State Government.2. For the determination of the afore-stated important legal issue, it is unnecessary to dilate on the facts obtaining in individual cases in this bunch of civil appeals/special leave petitions/writ petitions and a brief reference to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 6249- 6250 of 2001, noticed in the referral order dated 8th November, 2006, would suffice. These are: One Abdul Rahaman Mondal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the complainant') along with a large n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1946Mad45; (1945)2MLJ414
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Kistna for an offence punishable under Section 5 of Act VI of 1908 and sentenced to transportation for 5 years. He was charged also for having committed an offence under Section 4 of that Act but he has been acquitted in respect of the same.2. The Reserve Police Force which was temporarily located at Bezwada was housed in temporary huts by the side of the Bandar canal. On 15th November, 1942, even before the huts were completed, a corner in the line caught fire. On pulling down the palmyra leaves from the roof, two cotton balls were noticed each J an inch in diameter. The balls were suspected to be phosphorus balls. On 6th December, 1942, when a sentry was keeping watch, he saw fire breaking, out from the eastern side of the police line at 5-30 p.m. At 3 p.m., on 7th December, 1942, the house of the accused was searched in which several articles were found, M. Os. i to 17, viz., a Congress flag, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(3)BomCR418
Da Silva, J.1. The challenge in this petition is the judgement of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu, dated 10th September, 1990 in Eviction Appeal No. 49/85 which has unsettled the judgment of the Rent Controller, North Division, Panaji, dated 23rd April, 1985 in Case No. RENT/17/82. By the aforesaid judgment the Rent Controller has allowed an application for eviction moved by the original late petitioner Shri Anand Malbari now represented by his legal representatives, the petitioners for eviction of the respondent No. 1. (hereinafter called the respondent) on two grounds of change of user of the premises and causing nuisance to the neighbours as a result whereof the respondent was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the said late Anand within a period of sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the late Anand by deed dated 1st December, 1973 granted on lease to the respondent the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997AP20; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)628; 1996(3)ALT901
ORDER1. The petitioner applied for a licence, to possess and sell explosives by establishing a Magazine for the storage of explosives, to the third respondent who is the competent authority for grant of such licence. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition that the petitioner had purchased land in Sy. Nos. 756 to 766 of Ankireddipally village, Keesara Mandal, Rangareddy District. The petitioner hadnever carried on the business in explosive earlier and there has been no complaint against the petitioner under the Explosives Act, 1984 or under the Explosives Substances Act, 1988. However, the petitioner's brother Sri A. Indrasena Reddy has been carrying on business in explosives under the name and style of M/s. Vijaya Associates which was a proprietory concern and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the aforesaid business. It appears that a case is pending against the petitioner's brother under the Explosives Act and on that ground the Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR541; 2001(4)KarLJ5
ORDERThe petitioner has filed this petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the Tatkal Scheme. Under the Tatkal Scheme a person paying Rs. 4,000/- would be given out of turn allotment of LPG cylinders for domestic use.2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the marketing of LPG is being regulated by the first respondent through three Public Sector Companies and several private dealers. As there were many shortcomings in the marketing of LPG, a Committee under one Mrs. Sudha Joshi was appointed to study the problems of the LPG consumers and dealers and submit its recommendations. The Committee submitted its report and the first respondent accepted it. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the first respondent accepted it, it has not so far given effect to any of the recommendations of the Committee and on the other hand it has now come up with the impugned Tatkal Scheme for out of turn allotment of LPG connections to perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS FILED BY ACCUSED WITH STATE APPEAL (PART 4) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1438 OF 200.Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani @ A.S. Mubarak S Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH Criminal Appeal No.912 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1030 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1311 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.417 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1610 of 2011 AND Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1420 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.1031 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 675-681 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.406 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1034 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.512 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2011 AND Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2008 AND Criminal Appeal No.403 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1...
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 : Gujarat
1. As all the appeals involve common question of law and arise from the common judgment rendered in POTA Case No. 7 of 2003 and 9 of 2003, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is pertinent to note that Criminal Appeal Nos. 1148 of 2006, 1149 of 2006, 1150 of 2006, 1151 of 2006 and 1155 of 2006 are preferred by the appellants who are convicted by the Special [POTA] Court and sentenced under Section 3[1] of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 ["POTA" for short] to undergo RI for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; under Section 3[3] of POTA to undergo RI for a period of eight years and fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; under Section 4 read with Sec.3[3] of the POTA to undergo RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT(Cri)573; 1995CriLJ477; 1994(3)Crimes344(SC); JT1994(5)SC540; 1994(3)SCALE1004; (1994)5SCC410; [1994]Supp3SCR263
J.S. Verma, J.1. By an order dated 18.8.1994 made in these special leave petitions by the Division Bench (B.P. Jeevan Reddy and N.P. Singh, JJ.), these matters relating to grant of bail to the petitioner, an accused in the Bombay blasts' case being tried by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay, have been referred for decision by a Constitution Bench since certain questions involved in these special leave petitions arise in respect of a large number of persons accused of offences punishable under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'). This is how these matters have come up for decision by this Bench. At the commencement of hearing before us, we had indicated that this Bench would decide only the questions of law involved in the case as indicated in the order of reference and then send back these matters to the appropriate Division Bench for decision on merits in accordance with the answers we give to the questions o...
Tag this Judgment!