Array ( [0] => ..... respondent to have obtained all necessary consents and approvals. the respondent does not plead and infact cannot plead that it was not aware that for obtaining permission under section 68 of the electricity act for laying transmission line the route survey was a condition precedent. even assuming that article 3.1(a) did not mandate the respondent to have obtained such consent ..... or indirectly, of the affected party and could not have been avoided if the affected party had taken reasonable care or complied with prudent utility practices: a) act of god, including, but not limited to lightning, drought, fire and explosion (to the extent originating from a source external to the site), earthquake, volcanic, eruption, landslide, flood, cyclone, typhoon or tornado; b) any ..... [1] => ..... that so no.4/2008, provides for relaxation of the category, it is contended that the expression active duty as defined under section 2 (a) of the central reserve police force act, 1949 (crpf act), does not cover the activity of playing badminton. therefore, though the... petitioner had sustained injury while on duty he could not ..... be read as administrative genres with the circumstances mentioned in para 4.17 b i.e. a duty which could envisage field firings, accidental firings, explosion of mines or other explosive devices . in other words, the... respondents want to narrow down the expression accidents to only those accidents of the aforementioned kind and not just ..... posting, he may be called upon to perform active duties and therefore to restrict the expressions accidents to only those incurred during field firings, accident firings, explosion of mines will not do justice to the intention behind providing for such relaxation.17. another situation could be that while an officer is in his ..... [2] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [3] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [4] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [5] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [6] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [7] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [8] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [9] => ..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate ..... [10] => ..... of employer and employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question.... petitioner is an establishment under the act, 1972, also not being in question and sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 not coming to the aid to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not ..... of gratuity. in the given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded from the applicability of the act, 1972 adverting to the definition of 'employee' as defined in sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972, w.p.(c) 10027/2019 & conn. matters page 4 of 9 cannot be understood. it does not ..... applies. the thrust of his submissions is founded on the definition of employee as provided for under sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972.4. sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 reads as follows: employee means any person (other than an 2(e) apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, ..... [11] => ..... of employer and employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question.... petitioner is an establishment under the act, 1972, also not being in question and sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 not coming to the aid to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not ..... of gratuity. in the given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded from the applicability of the act, 1972 adverting to the definition of 'employee' as defined in sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972, w.p.(c) 10027/2019 & conn. matters page 4 of 9 cannot be understood. it does not ..... applies. the thrust of his submissions is founded on the definition of employee as provided for under sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972.4. sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 reads as follows: employee means any person (other than an 2(e) apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, ..... [12] => ..... of employer and employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question.... petitioner is an establishment under the act, 1972, also not being in question and sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 not coming to the aid to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not ..... of gratuity. in the given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded from the applicability of the act, 1972 adverting to the definition of 'employee' as defined in sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972, w.p.(c) 10027/2019 & conn. matters page 4 of 9 cannot be understood. it does not ..... applies. the thrust of his submissions is founded on the definition of employee as provided for under sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972.4. sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 reads as follows: employee means any person (other than an 2(e) apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, ..... [13] => ..... of employer and employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question.... petitioner is an establishment under the act, 1972, also not being in question and sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 not coming to the aid to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not ..... of gratuity. in the given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded from the applicability of the act, 1972 adverting to the definition of 'employee' as defined in sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972, w.p.(c) 10027/2019 & conn. matters page 4 of 9 cannot be understood. it does not ..... applies. the thrust of his submissions is founded on the definition of employee as provided for under sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972.4. sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 reads as follows: employee means any person (other than an 2(e) apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, ..... [14] => ..... of employer and employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question.... petitioner is an establishment under the act, 1972, also not being in question and sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 not coming to the aid to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not ..... of gratuity. in the given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded from the applicability of the act, 1972 adverting to the definition of 'employee' as defined in sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972, w.p.(c) 10027/2019 & conn. matters page 4 of 9 cannot be understood. it does not ..... applies. the thrust of his submissions is founded on the definition of employee as provided for under sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972.4. sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 reads as follows: employee means any person (other than an 2(e) apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, ..... [15] => ..... of employer and employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question.... petitioner is an establishment under the act, 1972, also not being in question and sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 not coming to the aid to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not ..... of gratuity. in the given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded from the applicability of the act, 1972 adverting to the definition of 'employee' as defined in sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972, w.p.(c) 10027/2019 & conn. matters page 4 of 9 cannot be understood. it does not ..... applies. the thrust of his submissions is founded on the definition of employee as provided for under sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972.4. sub-section (e) of section 2 of the act, 1972 reads as follows: employee means any person (other than an 2(e) apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, ..... [16] => ..... at this stage for the safe custody of the paper was obviously on the ee, and not on the... petitioner, as is also evident from the cpwd manual under section 18.3.16.1.23. in a decision dated 1st may, 2008 in civil appeal 3186/2008 (man singh v. state of haryana), the supreme court commented ..... others v. g. dasayan (1998) 2 scc407 wherein one dasayan, a police constable, along with two other constables and one head constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. the disciplinary authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on head constable. this court ..... legal position in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under: 19. we may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ..... [17] => ..... like arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement of himself or another. for instance, murder is of a person who had acted in lawful discharge of his duty under section 43 crpc. (9) when the crime is enormous in proportion like making an attempt of murder of the entire family or members ..... to the circumstances of the offender also." in the judgment while reaffirming 39. earlier jagmohan, subject of course to certain adjustments in view of the legislative changes [(section 354(3)]. the court observed:"161.the expression "special reasons" in the context of this provision, obviously means "exceptional reasons" founded on the exceptionally grave ..... illustrative guidelines indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad of legislative policy outlined in section 354(3) viz. that for persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. a real and abiding concern for the ..... [18] => ..... they were found knowingly living on the earning of prosecutrix ms. p and thus thereby the accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 363/3ipc & section 4, 5 and 6 of the immoral traffic (prevention) act, 1956. further accused abbas at time and date unknown however 2. prior to 03.08.2012 committed rape upon prosecutrix p , a minor girl ..... cr.p.c. accused persons were supplied the documents. thereafter vide order dated 16.02.2013 charge for offence u/s 363/3ipc and section 4, 5 and 6 of the immoral traffic (prevention) act, 1956 was framed against accused sumit jatav and radha @ radhika and charge for offence u/s 376 ipc was framed against accused abbas, to which ..... .749/2012 registered with police station jamia nagar, page 1 of 8 crl. l.p. 634/2019 district south-east, under sections 363/3ipc & 376 ipc as well as sections 4, 5 and 6 of immoral traffic (prevention) act, 1956. brief facts2 the relevant facts as noted by the trial court are as under:-"in brief the case of the prosecution ..... [19] => ..... (supra) is set out below:-" 6. in avinash bhosale v. union of india, (2007) 14 scc325the supreme court held that an offence punishable under section 135(1)(ii) of the customs act, 1962 (act of 1962) would be bailable. a review petition being r.p.(crl) no.130/2008 in criminal appeal no.1138/2007 filed against this judgment was dismissed ..... out in part ii of the first schedule of the cr.p.c.7. the respondents contend to the contrary. according to the respondents, the offence under section 63 of the copyright act falls squarely within part ii of the first schedule to the cr.p.c., which indicates that offences punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but ..... courts, restricted the present petition to challenge the impugned orders on the sole ground that the offence w.p.(crl) 3422/2018 page 3 of 20 under section 63 of the copyright act is not a cognizable and a non bailable offence. reasons and conclusion at the outset, it is relevant to note that the opening sentence of 4. the ..... ) Explosives Act 1884 Section 4 Definitions - Sortby Recent - Court Delhi - Page 3 - Judgments | SooperKanoon Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: delhi Page 3 of about 19,101 results (0.109 seconds)

Dec 18 2018 (HC)

Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. Vs.precision Technik Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... respondent to have obtained all necessary consents and approvals. the respondent does not plead and infact cannot plead that it was not aware that for obtaining permission under section 68 of the electricity act for laying transmission line the route survey was a condition precedent. even assuming that article 3.1(a) did not mandate the respondent to have obtained such consent ..... or indirectly, of the affected party and could not have been avoided if the affected party had taken reasonable care or complied with prudent utility practices: a) act of god, including, but not limited to lightning, drought, fire and explosion (to the extent originating from a source external to the site), earthquake, volcanic, eruption, landslide, flood, cyclone, typhoon or tornado; b) any .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 13 2018 (HC)

Venkatesh vs.union of India & Ors

Court : Delhi

..... that so no.4/2008, provides for relaxation of the category, it is contended that the expression active duty as defined under section 2 (a) of the central reserve police force act, 1949 (crpf act), does not cover the activity of playing badminton. therefore, though the... petitioner had sustained injury while on duty he could not ..... be read as administrative genres with the circumstances mentioned in para 4.17 b i.e. a duty which could envisage field firings, accidental firings, explosion of mines or other explosive devices . in other words, the... respondents want to narrow down the expression accidents to only those accidents of the aforementioned kind and not just ..... posting, he may be called upon to perform active duties and therefore to restrict the expressions accidents to only those incurred during field firings, accident firings, explosion of mines will not do justice to the intention behind providing for such relaxation.17. another situation could be that while an officer is in his .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Ramji Lal vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Shiv Lakhan vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Jeet Singh & Ors. Vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Govind Ram @ Gopi Chand & Ors vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Mangu Ram & Ors vs.state (Delhi Admn.)

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Bal Kishan vs.delhi State

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Banwari Lal vs.state (Delhi Admn.)

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 28 2018 (HC)

Sangu vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... officials forcing the crl.a1521996 & connected page 12 of 79 mob to flee away to block no.13, the police officials having made seizures of fire-arms, ammunition, explosive material etc. and taking certain persons (mostly sikhs) into custody.13. the third case fir no.425/1984 was registered at the instance of the acp of the ..... or to register the cases and consequently he (the sho), motorcycle rider (munshi ram) and si jugti ram having committed offences punishable under sections 217 and 211 ipc and section 60 of delhi police act,1978.14. the last in the series of the aforementioned cases would be the fir no.426/1984, the rukka (ex. pw8/a-b ..... been made out for invocation of the rule of vicarious liability under section 149 ipc vis-a-vis the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substances to destroy the houses, shops or places of worship, punishable under section 436 ipc. though the statements of various witnesses under section 161 cr. pc which have been referred to earlier did indicate .....

Tag this Judgment!




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //