Court : Patna
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. In the instant application a prayer has been made for quashing of the first information report lodged under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 5 of the Explosives Rules (shortly the rules) as well as the order taking cognizance dated 7.9.1994 for an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Substance Act). 2. Before dealing with the points raised on behalf of the parties, the facts, in brief, are necessary to be stated; The Sub-Inspector of Police, Daltonganj police station on getting secret information that a jeep bearing registration No. BHH 5610 was carrying 10 K. Gs. of explosive articles with detonators and fues from M/s Paramount Explosive Magazine to the offence of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinater referred to as ('Corporation') whereas, under law, they were entitled to carry only 5 K.Gs. of explosives at a time, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. No.52448 of 2017 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.728 of 2015 Arjun Gopal and Ors. versus .Petitioners Respondents JUDGMENT Union of India and Ors. Madan B. Lokur, J.1. A large number of disparate prayers have been made in this public interest litigation initiated by the petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution, but for the time being we are only concerned with the first prayer. This is to the effect that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to ban the use of fireworks, sparklers and minor explosives in any form, during festivals or otherwise.2. The public interest relief sought for is required to be considered from two perspectives: firstly, from preventing air pollution through the bursting IA No.52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 1 of 44 of fireworks and secondly, by invoking the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :28.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal (MD)No.1167 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2012 Tamilnadu Fire Works and Amorces Manufacturers Association, Rep.by its President S.S.Vijayakumar, ".TANFAMA Centre"., 442, Kamarajar Road, Sivakasi-626 123..Appellant/ Petitioner versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Labour and Employment, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.The Director, Industrial Safety & Heath, (formerly the Chief Inspector of Factories).No.35, Indian Officers Association Building, T.V.K.High Road, Royapettai, Chennai-600 014. 3.The Joint Director, Industrial Safety & Health, (formerly Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Sivakasi and Virudhunagar Divisions, Virudhunagar. 4.The Deputy Director, Industrial Safety & Health, (formerly Inspector of Factories, Sivakasi..Respondents/ Respondents (Cause title of respondents 2 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The State has come in appeal against judgment dated 29.9.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan in Cr. Case No. 17/3 of 2001/2000, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884( for short Act).2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-7 HC Kalyan Singh along with police party was patrolling and was on his way to Madoli Dhar on 17.5.2000 at about 4.45 p.m., both the respondents were standing on the side of road and were carrying polythenes with them. On seeing the police, the respondents tried to escape from the spot but they were apprehended on suspicion. On search of the bag of respondent No. 1 Lal Singh, it was found containing 25 gelatine and from the bag of Jagar Singh 10 meters fuse wire and one small pack (Dibia) containing 10 detonators were found. The respondents could not produce any export permit for exporting or possessing the explosive substance. The investigating officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3136; 2005(3)AWC2685(SC); 2005(5)BomCR553; 121(2005)DLT547(SC); [2005(4)JCR4(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC210; (2005)5SCC733
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. These two matters before us raise certain issues of far- reaching implications in day-to-day life of the people in India relatable to noise pollution vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted in its wide sweep by the constitutional courts of the country. Though a limited grievance was raised to begin with but several interveners and interlocutory applications enhanced the scope of hearing and the cases were heard in a very wide perspective centering around Article 21 of the Constitution. Several associated and incidental issues have also been gone into.Facts in W.P.(C) No. 72/982. CWP No. 72/98 is filed by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer by profession moving the Court pro bono publico. The immediate provocation for filing the petition was that a 13 year old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in newspapers of January 3, 1998). Her cries for help sunk and went unheard due to blaring noise of music over loudspeaker...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2001Delhi455; 93(2001)DLT28; 2001(60)DRJ297
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is a petition filed on behalf of an association of public activists in public interest. Main grievance in this petition is that as a result of display of fire works and use thereof during festivals and marriages, physical and mental hazard is suffered by adults as well as children. Noise pollution is caused due to use of high-sounding explosive fire works and other blaring sound-producing devices and the effect of the same results in pollution in sound, which is hazardous. It is also submitted that because of indiscriminate use of loudspeakers, noise pollution has become a routine affair affecting mental as well as physical health of citizens. There is noise pollution notwithstanding specific instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Delhi. It is highlighted that manner in which sound pollution is being caused and the impact of such sound pollution on the health of the people, is a cause for great concern.2. 'Pollution' i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.349 of 1994, arising out of Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.75 of 1994. By the said order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has refused to add charges under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908.2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of this petitioner, a case vide Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.75 of 1994 was registered on 8.5.1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 452,324,307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. In the F.I.R., the petitioner alleged that on 8.5.1994 in the morning at about 8.00 A.M. unknown accused persons entered into the house of the petitioner and exploded bomb and three persons of the informant side were assaulted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT78
V. Ramkumar, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 to 9 in Sessions Case No. 143/98 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc I), Thalassery are the appellants in this appeal. They challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them by the aforesaid Court for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 10-3-1995 at about 9 p.m. the accused who are C.P.M. loyalists, out of their enmity towards Chembattarathinmel Kelu, P.W.1 (Krishnan), P.W.3 (Raveendran) and C.W.3 (Gopi) who are workers and sympathisers of B.J.P., formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit rioting armed with deadly weapons, to cause hurt to the aforesaid persons using country bombs and to commit the murder of the said persons who were sitting on the steps leading to Koovendavalappil house at K.C. Mukku in Puthur amsom, Kootter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:07. 01.2014 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN AND The Honourable Mr.Justice A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Criminal Appeal Nos.161, 141, 171 and 312 of 2012 Haroon Ismail ... Appellant /Accused No.1 in Crl.A.161/2012 Rifayee ... Appellant/Accused No.2 in Crl.A.141/2012 Mohammed Kothbudeen... Appellant/Accused No.3 in Crl.A.171/2012 Zahir Hussain Abdul Azeez Appellants/Accused No.5&7 in Crl.A.312/2012 Versus State by The Additional Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Tiruchirapalli. (Cr.No.637/1995-Nagoor PS) (Cr.No.1297/1995-Myladuthurai PS) ... Respondent/Complainant in all the four Appeals Criminal Appeal Nos. 161, 141, 171 and 312 of 2012 have been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai in S.C.No.6 of 2004 dated 1.2.2012. Mr.A.Ramesh, S.C. for Mr.A.M.Venkatakrishnan .. For...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(4)SC294; RLW2003(3)SC424; 2003(4)SCALE402; (2003)9SCC673; 2003(2)LC993(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Designate Judge at Ajmer, Rajasthan, made in TADA Special Case No. 8 of 1992. In the said case, the appellants herein along with some other accused were charged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIC.II, New Delhi for offences under Sections 3(3) and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'), Section 120B IPC; and Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9B and 9C of the Explosive Act. After trial the Designated Court held the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Sections 3(3) and 6(1) of the TADA, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Learned Judge also held A-5 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9B(i)(b) and 9C of the Explosives Act. Based on the said conviction, he imposed a sentence of 5 y...
Tag this Judgment!