Court : Kerala
1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure F charge sheet laid against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under S.9B(1) of The Explosives Act, 1884. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 07.08.2013, the petitioner was found in possession of 25 bundles of Safety Fuses and 100 ordinary Detonators kept in the store room of the premises owned by the petitioner at Thonipoika. Under the premise that the petitioner was in possession of the above explosives without a valid licence or permit, investigation was conducted and charge was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a quarrying unit under the name and style as Al-Fathima Metal Crusher Unit at Anchal. Annexure B is the consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj153
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Allahnoor under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh, and arises in the following circumstances:2. The applicant is a person carrying on trade and business of manufacturing file-works, and sale or gun-powder at Nimbahera. In that connection, he applied to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh for a no-objection certificate under Rule 85(3) of the Explosives Rules as he desired to obtain a license for 200 pounds of gun-powder from the Chief Inspector of Explosives. The District Magistrate, however, rejected the application without even looking at the site where the applicant proposed to carry on the business, and gave, no reasons to the applicant for such rejection.The applicant, therefore, has come up to this Court and his contention is that he is being deprived of his occupation, and thus his fundamental right granted under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has been violat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR376; 1990(3)KarLJ499
ORDERRamachandraiah, J.1. These two criminal revision petitions filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are disposed of by a common order at the Admission stage itself as agreed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned State Public Prosecutor as they involve same facts and points of law for consideration.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kolar Gold Fields (K.G.F) seized from the residential house of one Sri V, Ramaswamy, who is the husband of petitioner Smt. Shamaladevi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 417/1989 and from the premises of Kamadenu Stores, Vijayanagar, K.G.F. which was in the occupation of one Sri D. Soundararajalu, who is the husband of petitioner Smt. S. Sukanya, also called as Suganya & Suguna in Criminal Revision Petition No. 418/1989 sufficiently huge quantity of fire works and sparklers estimated to be of the value of Rs. 1,06,851/- and Rs. 74,738/- respectively on the ground that the said two persons had no licenc...
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 : Chennai
Reported in : 2009(171)LC254(Madras); 2010(249)ELT324(Mad)
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The above writ appeals are directed against the common order passed in W.P. Nos. 336 and 341 of 2009, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. In W.P. Nos. 10330, 12250 and 13366 of 2009, the petitioners seek to quash the public notice No. 140/2008 dated 31.12.2008 and to direct the first respondent therein to accept the candidature of the petitioners for the grant of licence under Regulation 9(1) of the CHARL, 2004 so as to act as Customs House Agent.3. Since the issues involved in the writ petitions as well as in the writ appeals are identical, both the writ petitions and writ appeals are heard together and this Common Judgment is passed.4. (i) The case of the appellants and the writ petitioners is that they are engaged in the work of clearance of goods through Customs for the past several years and they are claiming that they have all passed the examination prescribed as per Regulation No. 9 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regu...
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 : 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!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All15; 1965CriLJ1
Uniyal, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31-8-1962 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut, acquitting Ram Pal respondent under Section 5 or the Explosive Substances Act. The respondent was tried for offences under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as also under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosives Act. He was convicted of the offence under Section 6 of the Explosives Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment but was acquitted of the charges under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well as Section 5 of the Explosives Act. While the State has acquiesced in his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosives Act it has challenged his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. The facts relating to the recovery or country made bomb material from the possession of the respondent on the night of the 8th January, 1960 have not been disputed. The report of Sri B. N. Dey, Inspector of Explosives, proved that the explosive mate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR231; 2001(1)BomCR230
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The order passed by the Returning Officer, Agrasen Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yerawada, Pune (respondent No-3 herein) on 17-6-98 rejecting the nomination form of the present petitioner for election to the managing committee of Agrasen Co-operative Bank (respondent No. 4 herein) and the order dated 26-6-98 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2 herein) confirming the order of respondent No. 3 are under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner is member of respondent . No. 4 Bank which is Urban Co-operative Bank and is notified society under section 73-IC of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The election programme for electing the managing committee members of the respondent No. 4 Society for the tenure of 1998-2003 was declared by the Registrar and the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Returning Officer. According to the election programme, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - R CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1206 OF2017C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.820 OF2017IN CRL.A. No.1206/2017 BETWEEN:1. SAYYED MOHAMMED NAUSHAD, S/O SAYED MOHAMMED IRSHAD, AGED ABOUT32YEARS, R/O SHADI MAHAL, DOOR NO.21-158-3, 1ST MAIN, SUBHASHNAGAR, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575 001.2. AHAMAD BAVA ABOOBAKKAR, S/O ABOOBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT39YEARS, R/O BELLUR, HALEANGADY, MANGALURU-574 146. APPELLANTS (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.1; BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. SAGARIKA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR APEELLANT No.2) - 2 - CRL.A No.1206 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No.820 of 2017 AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THOUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULLALA POLICE STATION, MANGALURU-575 020. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNA...
Tag this Judgment!