Court : Mumbai
1. These two applications for bail have been filed by two persons arrested and chargesheeted in connection with bomb blasts at Malegaon, District Nasik on 29th September, 2008, for their alleged involvement in offences punishable 120B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 153-A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act read with Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Act (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA ) and read with Sections and Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act read with Sections 16, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as UAPA ). The applicants were arrested on 5th November, 2008 and 2nd November, 2008 respectively. 2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these two applications and which may, for the sake of arguments, be taken to be not in serious dispute are as under :- Applicant Lt. Colonel Prasad Purohit is a serving Army officer, who was also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC404
1. The original authority had absolutely confiscated 1000 kgs of small cardamom and Truck No. DLIG 4437 under Section 111 (d) and Section 115 (2) respectively of the Customs Act and had also imposed personal penalties of Rs. 25,000 each on the appellants under Section 112(b) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals preferred against the decision of the original authority. Hence these appeals before the Tribunal.3. The truck carrying 1000 kgs. of small cardamom, found deserted on a by-lane of Lucknow-Faizabad road near Polytechnic crossing, Lucknow was intercepted by officers of Customs on 26.5.98. The vehicle was brought to the Customs hqrs., Lucknow, and the cardamom was unloaded and got examined by local grocery merchants summoned by the officers. The examiners opined that the cardamom was of Guatemalan origin and could be valued at around Rs. 400 per kg. The Customs officers also noted that the goods were found packed in Nepali newspapers. They did not find any b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
H.N. Sarma, J.1. The writ petition WP(C) No. 3282/2006 has been filed by the petitioner Challenging the legality and the validity of the judgment and order dated 15.6.2006 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No. 115 RA(K)/2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in Encroachment Case No. 16/2005. Similarly, WP(C) No. 3283/2006 has been filed challenging the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue passed in Case No. 116 RA(K)/2005 upholding the notice of eviction dated 25.5.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.2. Both these two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and the points involved for determination also being common, as prayed for, these writ petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.3. I have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. N. Deka, learned Counsel and Mr. PS. Deka, learned GA, Assam.Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Mrs. Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. The petitioner filed his complaint before the Commission on 5.3.1993 against the opposite parties for deficiency of service and seeks directions to opposite parties to pay it Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages, loss of future profits and costs. 2. The case is as follows : The complainant wanted to organise a business promotion trip to Kathmandu in May/June, 1992 for 40 chit subscribers. It approached the opposite party No. 1 who assured that tickets for 40 persons by Royal Nepal Airlines from Delhi to Kathmandu on 28.5.1992 and return from Kathmandu to Delhi on 31.5.1992 would be arranged. On the basis of that assurance the complainant made its own arrangement for all the 40 subscribers to travel by Dakshin Express from Hyderabad to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station (New Delhi) on 26.5.1992 and return journey from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Hyderabad on 31.5.1992. However, later opposite party informed that it was not possible to get confirmed A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(2)Crimes834; 35(1988)DLT21; 1989(16)DRJ14
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Shri Ravish Khanna and his father Rajinder Nath Khanna are the residents of Moradabad (U.P.). They were running their business in the name and style of Sunbeam Exports at Railway Road, Moradabad. In connection with their business, they used to visit Delhi quite often. They had taken flat No. 22, Sunder Nagar Market, New Delhi, on rent for their stay during their business visits. They had engaged Shri Nathu, aged about 35/40 years as the servant for their Delhi establishment. He was Caretaker of the flat in their absence. (2) On 31st May, 1982, Ravish Khanna came to Delhi at about 8 P.M. and found the outer/staircase door locked. He searched for his servant Nathu. He also made enquiries from the neighbours who informed him that they had not seen Nathu for the last 4/5 days. Consequently, he telephoned his father at Moradabad to enquire about the keys of the flat. Rajinder Nath Khanna informed that the keys were left with Nathu and he (Ravish Khanna) should search for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. A. No.708/2010 Date of Decision:11. h October, 2013 MOHD DAWOOD Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Arpit Batra and Mr. Udit Jain, Advocates. versus DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pramod Bahuguna and Ms.Kavita, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of sentence dated 20th February, 2010 and 26th February, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS cases, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.37/3/2008 under Sections 21(c) and 23 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as NDPS Act) arising out of complaint filed by the customs titled as Sh. U.R. Gupta, Air Customs Officer, Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport), New Delhi v. Mohd. Dawood convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
M.C. Pathak, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 32(J)/68 and Government Criminal Appeal No. 13/68 are directed against the order of conviction and sentence and the order of acquittal respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 41 (K) of 1967. Altogether 51 persons were charged under Section 400, Indian Penal Code and tried by the learned Sessions Judge Goalpara. Out of them the case against 1 was given up by prosecution, 16 were convicted and 34 were acquitted. The 16 persons who were convicted and sentenced, have referred Criminal Appeal No. 32(J)/68 from the jail. The State Government has preferred Government Criminal Appeal No. 13/68 against the order of acquittal of the 34 accused persons.2. In Government Criminal Appeal No. 13/68, Mr. S. N. Bhuyan the learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of 6 Respondents, that is Respondents 14, 23, 25, 27 29 and 30.3. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the accused persons belonged to a gang associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 73(1992)CLT718; 1992CriLJ3979
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. The above two revisions arise from the judgment in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1985 of the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar. Petitioner Bijaya Kumar Swain was convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, the other petitioners were convicted under Section 307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and all the three petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year each for the offence punishable under Section 455/34, I.P.C. and appellant Bijaya Kumar Swain was further convicted under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeals against their conviction having been confirmed, the petitioners are in revision before this Court.2. Prosecution case is, on 21-3-84 petitioner Bijaya Kumar Swain reported before the Officer-in-charge of Gangapur Police Station that at ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3426
ORDERR.C. Kathuria, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18-10-2001 (Annexure P5) passed by Shri R.C. Godara, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the application dated 3-9-2001 (Annexure-P4) filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the prosecution to hold identification parade for identifying the petitioner by the three eyewitnesses in the case titled State v. Raju Gurung bearing FIR No. 73 dated 13-4-2001 registered under Sections 308 and 506, I.P.C. with Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh but at the time of submission of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') offence under Section 304, I.P.C. was added.2. For the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, a few facts need to be noticed. The present case was registered on the statement of Sitla Parshad resident of village Ramapur, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi (U.P.), who on the date of occurrence was residing in Koth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.869 OF2022ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.1157 OF2022(@ DIARY No.2575 OF2022 ABHISHEK . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. . RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Leave granted.2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.12.2021, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No.667 of 2020 whereby, the High Court has rejected his challenge to the order dated 05.11.2020, as issued by the Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City1 under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 19992 sanctioning prosecution of the appellant with five other accused persons in Crime No.251 of 2020 of Sadar Police Station, Nagpur City for varying offences 1 Hereinafter also referred to as the sanctioning authority. 2 For short, MCOCA. 1 under the I...
Tag this Judgment!