Suppression Of Unlawful Acts Against Safety Of Civil Aviation Act 1982 Section 9a Presumptions As To Offences Under Sections 3 3a And 4 - Judgment Search Results

Massimilano Latorre, Holder of Italian Passport Number Aa 1465972, (Ch ...

Court: Kerala

of 'ship' under the SUA Act. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 2005 effect to the International Maritime Organisation Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol Definition of Piracy Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any the parliament had enacted the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2 The Code of After Section 188 of the Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure, Procedure, 1973 1973, the following section shall service fee In order to assure the performance of the activity, the requesting Owner will, on top of what is indicated as defined under the Territorial Waters Act and the UNCLOS, 1982. Section 3 of the Territorial Waters Act stipulates that the defined under the Territorial Waters Act and the UNCLOS, 1982. Section 3 of the Territorial Waters Act stipulates that the sovereignty the IPC deals with extension of IPC to extra territorial offences. The learned Advocate General did concede that Section 4 has I am not referring to Section 4. According to him, Sections 2 and 3 of the IPC are relevant and apply Therefore, I find that in view of Sections 2 and 3 of the IPC, the notification referred above and the SUA case on hand. Therefore, I am not referring to Section 4. According to him, Sections 2 and 3 of the IPC

Amrinder Singh Vs. Unon of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1992(3)WLC307; 1992WLN(UC)389

Seizure of Aircraft (1970), and the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971). of 77 Governments. For dealing more effectively with offences involving unlawful seizure of aircraft or hijacking, India ratified the Convention which (1970), and the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971). Under these conventions, Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971). Under these conventions, states have concerted for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971). Under these conventions, states have concerted or may the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971). Under these conventions, states have concerted or may concert a person convicted for the offences contemplated by the said Act would be liable to life imprisonment. Such a provision was and (iv) any special form of procedure.9. The Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 is a special law. The trials under this Act have State of Punjab 1980 Cr.L.J. 636, the Supreme Court held Section 302 I.P.C. to be valid and, as such, the ratio the representatives of 77 Governments. For dealing more effectively with offences involving unlawful seizure of aircraft or hijacking, India ratified the 7(2) of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984.2. Sections 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Act read as under:Section-4 and then pass sentence on him according to law.6. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:Section 354(3)When the conviction one punishment has been provided an that is under Section 4.12. In recent years, there has been an increase in offences

Townsend Vs. Sain

Court: US Supreme Court

standard was utilized by the trial judge himself in the suppression hearing. If, as suggested by my Brother STEWART, these instructions had no reason to suspect that Townsend had done anything unlawful previous to their meeting. The pathologist testified that death was different. It is to test by way of an original civil proceeding, independent of the normal Page 372 U. S. 312 power would totally subvert Congress' specific aim in passing the Act of February 5, 1867, of affording state prisoners a forum a state trial judge employed an erroneous constitutional standard, the presumption should surely be that the judge knew the law and petitioner's will, but did not also cause loss of Page 372 U. S. 324 memory, the confession would nonetheless remain acceptable gave petitioner more 1/4-grain tablets of phenobarbital. On Monday, January 4, Townsend was taken to a coroner's inquest, where he was

Alderman Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

given "standing" in the majority opinion, has the right to suppression of the illegally obtained material and its fruits, and (2) him "standing" to object that the government agents conducted their unlawful search and seizure in order to obtain evidence to use material relating to any activities except those specifically directed to acts of sabotage, espionage, or aggression by or on behalf of even though attended by potential danger to the reputation or safety of third parties or to the national security -- unless of course, that the property owner could not bring a civil action to have the illegal listening device removed from his the Act. Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 221 (18 U.S.C. 2518(10)(a) (1964 rule of law. See Brinegar v. United States, supra, at 338 U. S. 181 (dissenting opinion). To allow anyone, regardless of 3/2 ] Mr. Justice Brandeis elaborated this point more than 40 years ago: "In a government of laws, existence of the

United States Vs. Chavez

Court: US Supreme Court

587 important than any other in the applications of the suppression remedy. Congress at no point indicated that it intended to at trial on the grounds that "(i) the communication was unlawfully intercepted;" "(ii) the order of authorization or approval under which use a telephone between California and Mexico, and performing other acts, in order to facilitate unlawful narcotics activity, and respondent James City of New York, Committee on Federal Legislation, Committee on Civil Rights, entitled "Proposed Legislation on Wiretapping and Eavesdropping after Berger use a telephone between California and Mexico, and performing other acts, in order to facilitate unlawful narcotics activity, and respondent James . . pursuant to the power conferred on him by Section 2516 . . . to make application" for a wire in connection with those offenses, that wire communications concerning the offenses will be intercepted, and that normal investigative procedures reasonably appear regulatory system. Nor is there any legislative history concerning these sections, as there is, for example, concerning 2516(1), see United from the District Court decision in United States v. Focarile, 340 F.Supp. 1033, 1057-1060 (Md.), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. rather than Mr. Mitchell"). See also United States v. Roberts, 477 F.2d 57, 59 (CA7 1973), holding the authorization improper because

Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur and Another Vs. State of Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

the NIA Act, namely, the Anti Hijacking Act, 1982, the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982, The Hague on 16th December, 1970. (iv) The Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 gives effect out in the laws made by the Parliament. Pertinently the Acts in the schedule to the NIA Act are the Acts Anti Hijacking Act, 1982, the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982, the Suprression of Unlawful Acts or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power; powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of 1982, the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982, the Suprression of Unlawful Acts Against Maritime Navigation it and in this case that was permissible because the Acts referred in the Schedule to the NIA Act and the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 gives effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Nagar Police Station, Malegaon on 30.09.2008 alleging offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 153A, 120B of the Indian the highest executive functionary of the country. There is a presumption that the Central Government will act fairly, impartially and in to create the machinery for investigation and prosecution of those offences. In pith and substance it would be covered by this offences that can be investigated by the NIA by invoking Sections 6 to 10 of the NIA Act. 10 It is to time be ordered by the State Government. Sections 2, 3, 4 and thereafter, Section 5 onwards of the Police Act, the law is within the competence of the Indian Parliament. 41 Mr. Jethmalani then submits that the law may be termed

Chicago Vs. Morales

Court: US Supreme Court

1983)); Act for the Promotion of Industry, and for the Suppression of Vagrants and Other Idle and Disorderly Persons (1787) (reprinted arrest criminals; (4) suppress riots, mobs, and insurrections; (5) disperse unlawful and dangerous assemblages and assemblages that obstruct the free passage "We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That their business. That, in turn, imperils community residents' sense of safety and security, detracts from property values, and can ultimately destabilize 3645, 3 CFR 103 (1964-1965 Comp.) (ordering those obstructing the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, to "disperse ... but this ordinance broadly covers a significant amount of additional activity. Uncertainty about the scope of that additional coverage provides the Laws of the State of Connecticut 206-210 (J. Cushing compo 1982)); Act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vagabonds, common Beggars publicly or privately owned. "(e) Any person who violates this Section is subject to a fine of not less than $100 Ann., Tit. 5, 4022 (1997); Wash. Rev. Code 9A.84.020 (1994); W. Va. Code 61-6-1 (1997); Wis. Stat. 86, p. 87 (1904) ("The criminal law deals with offenses after they have been committed, the police power aims to promptly obey such an order is in violation of this section. "(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to an alleged Proceedings before the City Council of that as many as 31,000 street gangs, with 846,000 members, exist. U. S. Dept. of of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid," 481 U. S., at 745 (emphasis added). The footnoted statement upon

U.S. Vs. Chavez

Court: US Supreme Court

for the employment of this extraordinary investigative device,' thereby requiring suppression even under the test the Court adopts in Chavez. Page suppress evidence on the grounds that '(i) the communication was unlawfully intercepted; '(ii) the order of authorization or approval under which City of New York, Committee on Federal Legislation, Committee on Civil Rights, entitled 'Proposed Legislation on Wiretapping and Eavesdropping after Berger principally accountable to the courts and the public for their actions.'12 Speaking to a related provision requiring that politically responsible state in section 2510(9), discussed above. The application must conform to section 2518, discussed below.' Ibid. ( Emphasis added.) The Committee's discussion make use of the described facility in connection with those offenses, that wire communications concerning the offenses will be intercepted, and responsibility' in the application and order to reach these conclusions. Sections 2518(1)(a) and 2518(4)(d) are not part of the detailed and the described wire communications) . . ..' (Emphasis added.) Footnote 3 In Chavez, the letter was signed by Petersen. Footnote 4 had been productive and not offensive to public sensibilities. Page 416 U.S. 580 , 592 Immediate acknowledgment of responsibility for authorizing

Ethyl Gasoline Corp. Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

does not sanction is the regulation of prices and the suppression of competition among the purchasers of the patented articles. That and illegal purposes. Page 309 U. S. 461 Since the unlawful control over the jobbers was established and maintained by resort upon the market and its use by the jobbers with safety to the public health. Appellants were accordingly enjoined from enforcing 36 Stat. 1167, 15 U.S.C. 29, of the Judicial Code, as amended 43 Stat. 938, 28 U.S.C. 345. The in themselves unlawful restraints within the meaning of the Sherman Act, which is not only a prohibition against the infliction of monopoly and is a violation of the Sherman Act. P. 309 U. S. 458 . (5) The patent monopoly of one ; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U. S. 490 ; Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Co., 246

Kazi ZeamuddIn Ahmed Vs. Queen-empbess

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal504

lawful means in his or their power to disperse or suppress the riot or unlawful assembly.9. The section, therefore, contemplates three or their power to disperse or suppress the riot or unlawful assembly.9. The section, therefore, contemplates three different breaches of duty.(a) occupier of land can only be held responsible for the acts of omission of his agent, and contends that, when his to suppress.10. Generally speaking vicarious punishment is not recognized by civilised systems of criminal law, at least in these days. But' section, though he may be in entire ignorance of the acts of his agent or manager. 35. In this case it held sufficient to bring the zemindars within the purview of Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. In the case if he or his agent or manager knowing that such offence is being or has been committed or having reason to Rampini.Rampini, J.25. This is a reference under the provisions of Sections 429 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was granted by the naib, a cultivated land in Jalil's possession. 31. On these facts the Magistrate convicted the accused under Section is a reference under the provisions of Sections 429 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was referred to me