Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1986]63STC404(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, Indian Explosives Limited, obtained a registration certificate on 1st July, 1960, under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Rules thereunder from the sales tax authority of Bihar. The said registration certificate was renewed up to 31st May, 1978.2. On 13th May, 1968, the petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s. Card Board Products (Gomia) whereby the latter firm supplied and sold to the petitioner the packing material, viz., fibre board, cartons, boxes, etc., in accordance with the specification mentioned therein in the agreement. The said agreement was renewed on 30th January, 1974.3. On 18th March, 1975, the petitioner received from the respondent No. 1, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, a letter whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause why the paper carton, purchased on the strength of the concession given in column 13 of the registration certificate, be not deleted from the registration certificate. The petitioner by a lett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2053/1996 Makhan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri G. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2.11.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in ST. No.74 of 1994 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C and Sections 5 read with Section 9B(1)(a) of the Explosives Act and sentenced for 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. In defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1965Cal89,1965CriLJ160
T.P. Mukherji, J.1. These seven appeals arise out of a trial held by the Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah. The appellants in these appeals are ten in number and they along with twoothers were put on trial before the learned Judge sitting with a jury on charges under Sections 147, 302/149 I. P. C. and on the same evidence they were separately tried bythe learned judge himself for an offence under Section 3of the Explosives Substances Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned judge accepting the unanimous verdict of the jury acquitted two of the accused of all the charges framed against them. They are accused No. 3, Kristo Bag and accused No. 11 Haradhan Roy. He further acquitted on a similar verdict of thejury accused No. 6 Jotiram Mondal and accused No. 7 NemaiAdak of the charges under the Indian Penal Code sections,but convicted, them under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. On a verdict of 5 to 4 returned by the jury thelearned judge convicted accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$-20-22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :2. d MAY, 2013. + CRL. A.112/2012 & CRL.M.B.185/2012 MOHD AKBAR HUSSAIN @ MOHD QASIM @ HABIB ..... Appellant + CRL. A.113/2012 & CRL.M.B.186/2012 ABDUL REHMAN@ MOHD HASSAN ..... Appellant + CRL. A.114/2012 & CRL.M.B.187/2012 SALMAN KHURSHID KORI ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent in all the appeals Appearance : Mr.N.D.Pancholi, Advocate with Mr.K. Zimik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. Appellants from JC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. The appellants- Mohd.Akbar Hussain @ Mohd.Qasim @ Habib (A-1), Abdul Rehman @ Mohd.Hassan (A-2) and Salman Khurshid Kori (A-3) challenge judgment dated 13.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.236/1/2010 arising out of FIR No.96/2006 registered at PS Special Cell by which they were convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Vide order dated 15.12.2011, they were awarded RI for ten years with fine ` 5,000/- eac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$-20-22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :2. d MAY, 2013. + CRL. A.112/2012 & CRL.M.B.185/2012 MOHD AKBAR HUSSAIN @ MOHD QASIM @ HABIB ..... Appellant + CRL. A.113/2012 & CRL.M.B.186/2012 ABDUL REHMAN@ MOHD HASSAN ..... Appellant + CRL. A.114/2012 & CRL.M.B.187/2012 SALMAN KHURSHID KORI ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent in all the appeals Appearance : Mr.N.D.Pancholi, Advocate with Mr.K. Zimik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. Appellants from JC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. The appellants- Mohd.Akbar Hussain @ Mohd.Qasim @ Habib (A-1), Abdul Rehman @ Mohd.Hassan (A-2) and Salman Khurshid Kori (A-3) challenge judgment dated 13.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.236/1/2010 arising out of FIR No.96/2006 registered at PS Special Cell by which they were convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Vide order dated 15.12.2011, they were awarded RI for ten years with fine ` 5,000/- eac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$-20-22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :2. d MAY, 2013. + CRL. A.112/2012 & CRL.M.B.185/2012 MOHD AKBAR HUSSAIN @ MOHD QASIM @ HABIB ..... Appellant + CRL. A.113/2012 & CRL.M.B.186/2012 ABDUL REHMAN@ MOHD HASSAN ..... Appellant + CRL. A.114/2012 & CRL.M.B.187/2012 SALMAN KHURSHID KORI ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent in all the appeals Appearance : Mr.N.D.Pancholi, Advocate with Mr.K. Zimik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. Appellants from JC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. The appellants- Mohd.Akbar Hussain @ Mohd.Qasim @ Habib (A-1), Abdul Rehman @ Mohd.Hassan (A-2) and Salman Khurshid Kori (A-3) challenge judgment dated 13.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.236/1/2010 arising out of FIR No.96/2006 registered at PS Special Cell by which they were convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Vide order dated 15.12.2011, they were awarded RI for ten years with fine ` 5,000/- eac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW WEDNESDAY, THE30H DAY OF JULY20148TH SRAVANA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 4641 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 257/2014 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. ....... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ YESHPAL, S/O. SASIDHARAN, AGED41YEARS, NIRAPIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.SAM. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA. T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3007-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.4641 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2014 ORDER The petitioner is the second accused in Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3124
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Major Jagmal Singh Yadav and Ram Balak Patel, against the order dated Feb. 6, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Deeg Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2008 whereby the trial court framed charges under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against them petitioner No. 1 is Proprietor of M/s. Jagmal Singh & Corporation and petitioner No. 2 is employee in the said firm. The said firm is a license holder firm bearing licence No. E/NC/HN/22/13 (E-10019) HN-159/E which was issued by the Chief Explosive Controller, Northern Region, Faridabad (Haryana) and is dealing in providing explosive for the use of mines in the country. For using explosive under the aforesaid license, the petitioner established site project office at village Luhesar, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur and sought permission to use explosive in the mines at Kaman by to Chief controller of Explosive. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007BomCR(Cri)847
N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884(Act, for short) for having been found in possession of 9 non electrical detonators and 31 electrical detonators(item Nos. 25 to 28), 26 percussion caps(item Nos. 20 and 24) of panchanama Exh.C12 which are explosives as defined under Section 4(d) of the Act. 2. The accused was charged and tried under Sections 3, 5 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in addition to Section 9B(1)(a) and (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, with the allegation that at 13.00 hours on 1412001, PSI Banudas Dessai/PW14 who at the relevant time was attached to Vasco Police Station had received reliable information that the accused was in possession of illegal fire arms and consequent to the said information the house of the accused was raided and the accused was found with a rifle, revolver, live cartridges, empty cartridges, bull...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(1)BLJR367
D.P. Singh, J.1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, and appellant No. 2 Parikhit Mahato stands further convicted for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Dhanbad in Sessions Trail No. 153 of 1986.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 5th of November 1982, the informant and her family members had gone to harvest the paddy crop standing in Mauza- Gundligorha, P.S.- Chandankiary, District- Dhanbad. According to the informant, the appellant along with seven others came there armed variously and objected on harvesting the paddy. Further it is slated that when her husband Bidhyadhar Mahato asserted that he has right to harvest the paddy, all the accused persons fell upon him with arms in their hands. They further assaulted Mahanand Mahto. I...
Tag this Judgment!