Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Ram Bharosey Lal Krishan Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 October, 1971
In view of the same, the impugned judgment and orders dated 17.01.2014 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal No.05 of 2007-08 (Ram Bharosey Lal Vs. State of U.P.) and 29.11.2007 passed by the second respondent namely District Magistrate, Pilibhit in Case No.48 of 2007 are liable to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed.
Ram Murari Madhukar vs District Magistrate, Sitapur on 31 March, 1998
"10. "Public peace" or ''public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only and before passing of the order of cancellation of arm license as per Section 17 (3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case in view of the judgment given by this court in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 916) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pendency of a criminal case."
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Habib vs State Of U.P on 1 May, 2013
11. Further, this Court in the case of Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 ACC 783 held as under:
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Satish Kumar Singh vs District Magistrate, District Kushi ... on 13 February, 2020
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Satish Singh case (supra) are being reproduced as under:
Thakur Prasad Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 11 November, 2011
In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported 2013(31) LCD 1460 (LB) this Court after referring to the earlier pronouncements in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905] and Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows: