Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
K. Shankaraiah vs The Union Of India on 9 June, 2011 cites

S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990

In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2205 (S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India). He contained that although it is a charge under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, no FIR was lodged, no investigation made by the local Police and not tried by the Criminal Court. He submitted that the offence under Section 354 is not triable by Summary Security Force Court which has no jurisdiction to decide. He referred Section 47 of Border Security Force Act, Section 4 and Section 5 of Criminal Procedure Code and he further submitted that no steps could be taken by the Summary Security Force Court since the petitioner was not in 'Active Duty'. He cited a decision reported in 2003 Vol 3 Calcutta High Court Notes, Page 82. He further submitted that the petitioner, although admitted his guilt but recording of the same is not in consonance with Rule 142 (2) of the BSF Rules he also submitted that Rule 143 (2) (a) is also not complied with. He submitted that the procedural safe guard which is guaranteed, have not been followed. He cited a judgment reported in 1997 Vol 7 SLR 240. He also referred the judgments 6 reported in 2005 (1) CLJ 116, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2205, AIR 2008, Supreme Court 2026 and 1999 Calcutta Law Times Vol 2 (2) 107.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1274 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Dinesh Kumar on 16 February, 2010

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record as disclosed in the writ petition as well as in the opposition. A perusal of the documents show that lengthy statements have been recorded of petitioner, Upasana Dey, Dr. Mrs. S. Dey and other witnesses. The petitioner was allowed to cross examine all the witnesses. It appears that sufficient opportunity granted to the petitioner. After following the detailed procedure as stipulated under the rules the SSFC have imposed punishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of (Union of India and Another Vs. Dinesh Kumar) (Supra) after considering the relevant rules of Border Security Force Rules have clearly held that the finding given by Summary Security Force Court need not be supported by reasons. It was held that though Rule 99 was amended requiring authority of General Security Force Court or Border Security Force Court to give reasons in support of their findings, no such amendment was made to Rule 149 which is applicable in case of SSFC. Rule 149 was left intact in contradistinction to Rule 99. The SSFC were not required to give reasons in support of their findings. It appears that whether the SSFC is required to give reasons was directly in issue before the Supreme Court in that matter and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have clearly held that the SSFC is not required to give reasons in support of their findings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 20 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1   2 Next