Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)9SCC434
..... arising out of slp (crl.) no. 1357/2006 the appellants have impugned the order of the high court dated 9.3.2006 dismissing their application for discharge under section 227 of the code of criminal procedure. we notice that criminal appeals giving rise to slp(crl.) nos. 1357/2006, 1568/2006 and 1570/2006 were heard together ..... similar provisions in prevention of terrorism (repeal) act, 2004, which we have referred to a larger bench. we are, therefore, of the view that the appeals arising out of slp (crl.) nos. 1568/2006 and 1570 ..... . 1568/2006 and 1570/2006, the questions involved inter alia relate to the effect of recommendation made by the review committee under the provisions of the prevention of terrorism act, 2002 as amended by ordinance of 2003. similar questions are also involved in crl. a. no. 1113/2005 and other connected matters, though that case relates to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC477; 2008CriLJ702; JT2007(7)SC31; 2007(7)SCALE163; (2007)5SCC366; 2007AIRSCW7327
..... years r.i. and a fine of rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months s.i.under section 471 ipc : to 2 years r.i.under section 4 of the explosive substances act: to 7 years r.i. and a fine of rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months s ..... and one harnek singh @ surender verma (absconding) for offences punishable under sections 353, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 read with section 120b indian penal code ('ipc' for short), for offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the explosive substances act, 1908, sections 7 and 25 of arms act, 1959 and section 18 of tada etc. 4. the case of the prosecution was that the ..... the case was registered as sessions case no. 27 of 2003 under the indian penal code and also under the explosive substances act, 1908. the trial court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted accused no.1 (appellant herein) as under: under section 420 ipc : to 7 years r.i. and a fine of rs.500/-, in default of payment of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2774; 2007CriLJ4080; JT2007(9)SC453; 2007(7)SCALE312; (2007)5SCC634; 2007AIRSCW5013; JT2007(7)SC101
order71. for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by daya singh deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial court and confirmed by the high court is upheld.72. so far as accused suman sood is concerned, an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and upheld by the high court for offences punishable under sections 365/120b, 343/120b and 346/120b, ipc is confirmed and upheld. her conviction and order of sentence for offence punishable under section 364a read with 120b, ipc passed by the high court, however, is set aside and her acquittal for the said offence recorded by the trial court is restored.73. appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1840; 2007(2)JKJ41[SC]; JT2007(6)SC518; 2007(6)SCALE447; (2007)4SCC548
..... a bare reading of this provision would show that information with regard to the arrest of any person or seizure of property or arms and ammunition or explosives under the act has to be conveyed to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay etc. it is mr. ganesh's plea ..... seized under this act, shall be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together ..... warrant in situations referred to therein. section 6 to which special reference has been made by mr. ganesh, is however, re-produced below.arrested persons and seized property to be made over to the police - any person arrested and taken into custody under this act and every property, arms, ammunition or explosive substance or any vehicle or vessel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(13)SCALE467; (2007)1Crimes321; 2007(1)KCCRSN23(SC); (2007)12SCC230
..... mamata dutta are concerned, the only evidence against them was the judicial confession of mrinal dutta. the same was admissible against them only under section 30 of the indian evidence act.section 30:69. it is not in dispute that apart from general evidence in regard to commission of forgery etc., only evidence of involvement ..... of the high court to award death penalty, observed:the very idea of attacking and overpowering a sovereign democratic institution by using powerful arms and explosives and imperiling the safety of a multitude of peoples' representatives, constitutional functionaries and officials of government of india and engaging into a combat with security forces ..... admissibility in evidence. if the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise such as is mentioned in section 24, evidence act, it must be excluded and rejected brevi manu. in such a case, the question of proceeding further to apply the second test does not arise .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2157; 2006CriLJ2791; 130(2006)DLT602(SC); JT2006(5)SC468; 2006(5)SCALE682; (2006)5SCC584
..... placed by mr. mishra on bhoop ram v. state of u.p. : 1990crilj2671 , wherein the appellant was treated to be a child within the meaning of section 2(4) of the act; upon taking into consideration three factors: (i) that the appellant had produced a school certificate and correctness whereof was not questioned; (ii) the learned trial judge ..... was upon the election petitioner but for proving the facts which were within the special knowledge of the respondent, the burden was upon him in terms of section 106 of the evidence act. it is also trite that when both parties have adduced evidence, the question of the onus of proof becomes academic [see union of india v. sugauli ..... basis of the materials on records. it will be a matter of appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. different standards having regard to the provision of section 35 of the evidence act cannot be applied in a civil case or a criminal case. mr. mishra, however, would urge that while in a civil dispute a strict proof may .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1599; (2006)3GLR2304; JT2006(4)SC34; 2006(3)SCALE414; (2006)4SCC584
..... rival political parties at subhash sarobar and the case was registered as case no. 111 of 2001 for offences punishable under sections 148, 149 and 336 ipc read with sections 3 & 5 of explosive substances act, 1908 against the deceased and others and investigation started. the appellant, along with other police officers, rushed to the spot ..... what is relevant for our purpose is to notice that investigations into the two crimes registered, namely, case no. 111 under sections 148, 149, 336 ipc read with sections 3 and 5 of explosive substances act and case no. 112, registered on the complaint made by the complainant herein on 11.5.2001, have not been completed ..... being phoolbagan police station case no. 111 dated 10.5.2001 against 20/30 persons including robindranath das under section 148/149/336 of the india penal code and section 3 and 5 of explosive substance act.that the petitioner submits that initially the opposite party no. 1 lodged an information against some unknown police personnel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(3)SC544; (2006)143PLR159; 2006(3)SCALE178; (2006)3SCC620; [2006]145STC350(SC)
..... 2 ch. 1]. a retrospective effect to an amendment by way of a delegated legislation could be given, thus, only after coming into force of sub-section (2a) of section 64 of the act and not prior thereto.35. by reason of note 2, certain rights were conferred. although there lies a distinction between vested rights and accrued rights as by ..... dates. furthermore, on 6.09.1996, civil construction work started at site. plans submitted by the appellant for getting permission for storage of hexane were sanctioned by the explosives department on 19.9.1996 and licence was finally given on 11.3.1997. on 26.09.1996, process of installation of the plant started at the site. on ..... a promise. it was held:in this case the scheme being notified under the power in the state government to grant exemptions both under section 15 of the rst act and section 8(5) of the cst act in the public interest, the state government was competent to modify or revoke the grant for the same reason. thus what is granted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3699; 2006(2)AWC1162(SC); 2006(1)JKJ42[SC]; JT2006(2)SC294; 2006(2)SCALE284; (2006)3SCC129
..... behalf of' each of the manufacturers and enclosed a draft of the undertaking to be signed. finally, the letter stated:.your (m/s indian explosives ltd.) willingness to participate in the retention price scheme communicated, and undertaking the enclosed form duly executed by a competent authority on behalf of ..... appellant') is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling urea (a fertilizer). in 1993, the first appellant acquired the urea plant of m/'s indian explosives ltd. (a unit of ici india ltd.). the second appellant is a shareholder in the first appellant-company (hereinafter, collectively 'the appellants').4. in 1957 ..... notified fertilizers (including urea) as an 'essential commodity', under the essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the ec act'). the fertilizer (control) order, 1957 (hereinafter 'the fertilizer (control) order') was made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the ec act. the fertilizer (control) order has been revised from time to time. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(194)ELT3(SC); JT2006(1)SC385; 2006(1)SCALE327; (2006)2SCC351
..... the duty payable thereon. as far as the explanation is concerned, the inputs are restricted to inputs notified under rule 57a. there is no dispute that both explosives and limestone are notified under section 57a for manufacture of the final product viz. cement.5. the next relevant rule is rule 57f. what we are concerned with is sub-rule (4) ..... 1. the question whether the decision in jaypee rewa cement v. cce : 2001ecr193(sc) would apply to the cenvat rules 2000 framed under the central excise tariff act 1985 (referred to as the 'act') is to be decided on a reference made in this case. a bench of two judges of this court in commissioner of central excise, jaipur v. j ..... (hereinafter referred to as the cenvat credit) of.-(i) the duty of excise specified in the first schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said first schedule) , leviable under the act;(ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx(iii) xxx xxx xxx xxx(iv) xxx xxx xxx xxx(v) xxx xxx xxx xxxpaid on any inputs .....
Tag this Judgment!