Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing State Of M.P vs Bhupendra Singh on 7 January, 2000

State vs . Bhupendra Singh on 12 January, 2011

20. Sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act was required to be proved by the sanctioning authority in terms of law. PW10 SI Ram Narain deposed of having not worked with Sh Atul Katyal, the then Addl. DCP, South, during his such posting when he purportedly accorded sanction Ex PW10/A. The sanction accordingly is not proved in terms of law. Even alleged possession of Ex P1, country made pistol and cartridge, Ex P2, from possession of accused Bhupendra Singh has not been proved against him beyond reasonable doubt as in the course of investigation done at spot on 28/05/2003 for five continuous hours apparently no efforts, much less sincere efforts were done to join any independent witness to search of SC No. 23/09 13/15 State Vs. Bhupendra Singh accused Bhupendra Singh or seizure of Exts P1 and P2 from his person.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhupendra Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another on 28 August, 2025

9. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed, the proceedings of Case No.5385 of 2018 (State Vs. Bhupendra Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.979 of 2014, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad along with charge-sheet no. 02 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016 and cognizance order dated 15.11.2018 stands quashed as against the applicant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aba @ Munjaba Rajabhau Giri vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2021

In a case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhupendra Singh, reported in AIR 2000 SC 679, the Supreme Court has observed that power of granting consent under Section 7 of the said Act of 1908 rests with the Central Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. Thus, it is not competent for the State Government to further delegate the power to Additional District Magistrate, which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate. In the facts of the said case, the Supreme court held that sanction granted by the Additional District Magistrate was not valid. Though there is no authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court as to whether obtaining the consent of the District Magistrate is mandatory or directory, however, in para 3 of the judgment, the Supreme court has observed that for a prosecution under the said Act of 1908, the consent of the Central Government is ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2021 03:46:32 ::: crapl266.14 -23- requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof. It is further observed by the Supreme Court that the power granting consent under Section 7 of the said Act of 1908 rests upon the Central Government and the Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate.
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Kudhoos @ Abdul Kudhoos vs State By on 3 March, 2008

40. A careful reading of the said judgment shows that Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, as stood before the Amendment Act 54 of 2001, which came into force with effect from 1.2.2002, empowers the Central Government to give consent for prosecution. The said Section read that no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - D Murugesan - Full Document

M/S.D.Nagarajan & Co vs The Chief Regional Manager And Duly on 29 February, 2008

In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh (2000(1) CTC 554). In that case, the Central Government which is the authority for granting consent under Section 7 the Explosive Substances Act,1908 has delegated its powers to the District Magistrate and the State Government has further delegated the function of District Magistrate to Additional District Magistrate and in such circumstances, it was held that the State Government is not competent to further delegate to the Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate. The operative portion of the judgement is as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Bhupendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2016

52. Hence, the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 13.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 1998 (State Vs Bhupendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 522 of 1995, under Sections 498A/149, 306/149, 304-B I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act/149 IPC, Police Station Hapur, district Ghaziabad, is hereby set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R Pandya - Full Document

Saleem @ Abdul Saleem @ Thangalagu S/O ... vs State By Dy. Superintendent Of Police, ... on 3 March, 2008

40. A careful reading of the said judgment shows that Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, as stood before the Amendment Act 54 of 2001, which came into force with effect from 1.2.2002, empowers the Central Government to give consent for prosecution. The said Section read that no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - D Murugesan - Full Document

Arjun Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 October, 2025

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Race Club (Supra), it is crystal clear that both the sections i.e. Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath and as such without interfering in any other merit of the present matter, cognizance/summoning order dated 1.4.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Mathura in Criminal Case no. 41746 of 2025 (State vs. Bhupendra Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 489 of 2024 under sections 406, 420, 120B IPC, PS- Govardhan, District Mathura, is quashed only in respect of applicant herein.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next