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!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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)KCCR785,RLW2010(1)SC822,2010(2)SCALE467,2010(2)LC1047(SC):(2010)3SCC571
D.K. Jain, J.1. The issue which has been referred for the opinion of the Constitution Bench is whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI'), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short 'the Special Police Act'), to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State Government.2. For the determination of the afore-stated important legal issue, it is unnecessary to dilate on the facts obtaining in individual cases in this bunch of civil appeals/special leave petitions/writ petitions and a brief reference to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 6249- 6250 of 2001, noticed in the referral order dated 8th November, 2006, would suffice. These are: One Abdul Rahaman Mondal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the complainant') along with a large n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1256
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 27-2-89 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sthagarh in a case under Section 457/395/34, I.P.C. and Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. The appellants were found guilty for the offences of lurking house trespass and dacoity and convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years each.2. Prosecution case in brief. On 15/16-4-88 at about 1 a.m. in the night, the appellants along with 7 to 8 persons forcibly entered the house of Ananta Charan Acharya (P. W. 1) of village Kamarpur Sasan and after assaulting him, his wife and daughter took away gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs. 1050/-and decamped with the booty. It was also alleged that they exploded bombs to scare the neighbours as a result of which the neighbours could not come to the spot. P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. at the Gurudijhatia Police Station at 7.30 a.m. the following morning. The Investigating Officer during i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.679 OF2015ABU SALEM ABDUL KAYYUM ANSARI Appellant Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.180/2018 JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Crime and punishment is something which has agitated the judicial minds. Punishment cannot be disproportionately high or low. It should not be oppressive, but should serve the purpose of deterrence against crimes in a society along with a sense of justice to the victim and their family. This is a delicate balance, which has to be kept in mind an 1 aspect recently discussed in the judgment of this Court in Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu & Ors.1 As was observed in the said case, the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. We are faced with a somewhat similar scenario though with certain crucial nuances, which have to be considered. Facts :2. Abu ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1) The appeals and the writ petition raised a common question, as such were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The grievance of the appellant-Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari in the appeals and writ petition is that the criminal courts in the country have no jurisdiction to try in respect of offences which do not form part of the extradition judgment, by virtue of which he has been brought to this country and he can be tried only for the offences mentioned in the extradition decree.2) Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006, filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the TADA Act"), arose out of framing of charge on 18.03.2006 against the appellant by the Designated Court at Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai in RC No.1(S/93)/CBI/STF known as Bombay Bomb Blast Case No. 1 of 1993 and the order dated 13.06.2006 passed by the said Court separating the trial of the accused/appellant from the main trial in ...
Tag this Judgment!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
2023 INSC655REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.639 OF2023VERNON APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.640 OF2023JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.The appellants before us assail two judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejecting, in substance, their prayers for bail. Both the applications were filed on 27th October 2018 after the Special Judge, Pune under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (1967 Act) had dismissed their bail plea. The decisions of the High Court were delivered on the same date i.e. 15th October 2019. 1 | Pa ge 2. We shall deal with both the appeals in this judgment as the detention of the appellants was on the basis of the same First Information Report (FIR) and the chargesheet also contains the same Sections in respect of which offences are alleged to have been committed by them. These are Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 1...
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!