Skip to content


Search Results Judgments > Act:BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951,  (Maharashtra) - Section 139

May 01 1996

State of Bihar Vs. Smt. Sharda Devi

  • Decided on : 01-May-1996

Court : Patna

... Section 96, CPC, The Bombay High Court in Reghunathadas Harjvahdas v. The Dist. Superintendent of Police Nasik A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 187 and Mysore High Court in Hanumanthappa v. Kesisty A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 139 have taken the same view.41. By Section 3 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)Act (Act XIX of 1921), this section has been substituted in place of the old Section 54. The section ... meaning of Section 2(2) and is appeal able under Section 96, CPC, The Bombay High Court in Reghunathadas Harjvahdas v. The Dist. Superintendent of Police Nasik A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 187 and Mysore High Court in Hanumanthappa v. Kesisty A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 139 have taken the same view.41. By Section 3 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)Act (Act XIX of 1921), this section has ... in Reference under Section 30 being one on rights of contending parties, is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) and is appeal able under Section 96, CPC, The Bombay High Court in Reghunathadas Harjvahdas v. The Dist. Superintendent of Police Nasik A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 187 and Mysore High Court in Hanumanthappa v. Kesisty A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 139 have taken ... that Section. As held by the Madras High Court in Mahalinge Kudumband and T. Mudaliar A.I.R. 1929 Madras 223, the decision in Reference under Section 30 being one on rights of contending parties, is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) and is appeal able under Section 96, CPC, The Bombay High Court in Reghunathadas Harjvahdas v. The Dist. Superintendent of Police ...

Apr 24 2003

Bhupatji Shakaraji Vs. State of Gujarat

  • Decided on : 24-Apr-2003

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2003)2GLR207

... searched by Police Inspector, during which contraband articles, namely, 139 packets of brown sugar (weighing 7.5 gms.), were recovered and seized in presence of the panchas. He was charged for the offences under Sections 21 and 22 of the said Act and also under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and ... of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 (8) SCC 351 was a case in which the trial Court had concluded that the information under Section 50 was not given to the appellant, as noted in Paragraph 3 of the judgment. In that background, the Supreme Court held that, before conducting the search, the police ... there was no full compliance of Section 50 of the Act and substantial or partial compliance would be violative of Section 50 of the Act. (j) Decision of the Bombay High Court in Sadruddin Mohamed Husein Jundah Shah v. D.C.B. C.I.D., Narcotic Cell, Azad Maidan Unit, Bombay, reported in 2000 Cri. ... ) SCC 704, holding that since the provisions of Section 50 were not complied with, the trial stood vitiated, was a case in which the police officer who carried out the search did not inform the accused about his right flowing from Section 50 of the Act. It was held that it was obligatory ... be brought to the notice of the highest authorities in the State Government, the Home Department and the Police Department to prevent any deliberate or negligent breach of the provisions of Sec, 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The Registry will send copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of ...

May 11 2012

Shahid Mohammedali Bepari Vs. The Sub-divisional Magistrate and Others

  • Decided on : 11-May-2012

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2012CrLJ365(NOC)

... Magistrate, Miraj, SubDivision Miraj, under Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) externing the petitioner from the districts of Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur, for a period of two years. The petitioner had challenged the said order by filing an appeal under Section 60, but the State ... Bombay Police Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) externing the petitioner from the districts of Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur, for a period of two years. The petitioner had challenged the said order by filing an appeal under Section 60, but the State Government dismissed the same. 4 On 20.8.2010, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Sub-Divisional Police ... POLICE STATIONC.R.NO.SECTIONREMARKS1MirajCity139/2009143, 147, 148, 149, 295(A), 427 of IPC and 135 of Bombay Police Act.Under Investigation2MirajCity140-2009143, 147, 148, 149, 295(A), 427 of IPC and 135 of Bombay Police Act.Under Investigation3MirajCity141/2009143, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 427 of IPC, S. 3 and 7 of Public Damages Act and S.7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and S.135 of Bombay Police Act ... Police Station. It was alleged in the said notice that the petitioner was the 'ringleader' LANGUAGE behind the said crimes. The notice also mentioned the details of the cases registered against the petitioner as follows: SR. NO.POLICE STATIONC.R.NO.SECTIONREMARKS1MirajCity139/2009143, 147, 148, 149, 295(A), 427 of IPC and 135 of Bombay Police Act ...

Jan 19 1991

Shah Kalidas Madhavlal Jain Vs. B.L. Thakore

  • Decided on : 19-Jan-1991

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1991)1GLR634

... under Section 160 or 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.22. As noticed above, the above said was a case law based upon Madras Police Act, but mere are two other decisions of the Supreme Court dealing directly with the provisions contained under Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Mr. Udhwani has pressed in service the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Narhar ... Bombay Police Act, 1951 because the suit was not filed within the stipulated period of six months from the date of the alleged police atrocities.8. Moreover, the defendant-P.S.I. further contended that during that period various thefts were committed from the wells situated around about Mehmadabad, and that in C.R. No. 139 of 1972 of Mehmadabad Police ... Police Act, but mere are two other decisions of the Supreme Court dealing directly with the provisions contained under Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Mr. Udhwani has pressed in service the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Narhar Rao : 1966CriLJ1495 . In this decision the Supreme Court had taken the view, expressed on 14th March, 1966, that if any act ... Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Mr. Udhwani has pressed in service the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Narhar Rao : 1966CriLJ1495 . In this decision the Supreme Court had taken the view, expressed on 14th March, 1966, that if any act is said to have been done under the colour of the office there must be a reasonable connection between the act ...

Mar 21 2013

Sanjay Dutt And Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bomb ...

  • Decided on : 21-Mar-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

... Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 872, 875 where in the following observations are pertinent:- "4 .In order that the section may apply the prosecution must establish that the information given by the appellant led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him. It is evident that the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously ... informed by a casual contact that Hanif and Samir have been arrested by the Bombay Police for their complicity in bomb blasts.(xx) On hearing the news, I got frightened as these fellows had given me the AK-56 rifles and they may tell my name to the police to involve me in the bomb blasts case. I contacted my friend Mr. Yusuf ... residence by wanted accused Abu Salem Qayum Ansari (then absconding now A- 139) and Manzoor Ahmed Sayed Ahmed (A-89) and thereby aided and facilitated the distribution of firearms, ammunition and explosives smuggled into India by other co-conspirators for committing terrorist acts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (3) of TADA. At head Thirdly: The appellant, in pursuance of ... the CBI fails and the same is dismissed.Criminal Appeal No. 1104 of 2007Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53) Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro. Superintendent of Police, CBI (STF), Bombay[Criminal Appeal No. 1026 of 2012]The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay Vs. Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53)97) Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. V.K. Bali, learned senior counsel forA-53 ...

Mar 21 2013

SANJAY DUTT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TR.CBI,BOMBAY

  • Decided on : 21-Mar-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

... vs. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 872.875 wherein the following observations are pertinent:- 4 ..In order that the section may apply the prosecution must establish that the information given by the appellant led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him. It is evident that the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt ... informed by a casual contact that Hanif and Samir have been arrested by the Bombay Police for their complicity in bomb blasts. (xx) On hearing the news, I got frightened as these fellows had given me the AK-56 rifles and they may tell my name to the police to involve me in the bomb blasts case. I contacted my friend Mr. Yusuf ... residence by wanted accused Abu Salem Qayum Ansari (then absconding not A- 139) and Manzoor Ahmed Sayed Ahmed (A-89) and thereby aided and facilitated the distribution of firearms, ammunition and explosives smuggled into India by other co-conspirators for committing terrorist acts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (3) of TADA. At head Thirdly: The appellant, in pursuance of ... same is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 2007 Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro. Superintendent of Police, CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2012 The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay .... Appellant(s) vs. Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53) . Respondent(s) ********** 97) Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. V.K. Bali ...

Feb 13 2001

Anwar Hussain Mohd. Idris Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra

  • Decided on : 13-Feb-2001

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)609; 2001BomCR(Cri)694; (2001)3BOMLR338

... of Maharashtra, referred above, four accused persons were jointly appraised of their right under Section 50 of the Act. Following the view in Paramjeetsingh and another v. State of Punjab, the Division Bench of this Court observed that, it was necessary for the officers of the raiding party to appraise the accused persons individually regarding their right contemplated under Section 50 of the Act of ... the only corroboration. Evidence of Asma and Shri Pasbola, Advocate shows that she had been attempting to approach the Police Station and the Advocate and she has also sent telegrams to highest authorities, such as Commissioner of Police and the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Although defence has not been able to bring on record original of the telegram from either of ... entry by reading the whole entry in evidence. None of the parties objected to it.On perusal of Exhibit 139/A, which is xerox copy of all station diary entries, Sr. Nos. 1 to 44, dated 6.1.1994 as effected by Mumbra Police Station, it is ascertained that the entry No. 33 is not interpolation nor addition of paper etc. The ... from total compliance of Section 50 in letter and spirit.In the oral evidence, as well as contemporary documents, prosecution claims that all accused were informed of their right to be taken to nearest Gazetted Officer for personal search. The emphasis of learned counsel for appellants was the joint appraisal. In case of Dharamveer v. State of Maharashtra, referred above, four accused ...

Jul 22 1952

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. The State

  • Decided on : 22-Jul-1952

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 1953CriLJ1709

... section has been committed is only a report of the offence and cannot be regarded as compliance with the letter or spirit of Section 11 of the Act. In the present case on 13.1.51 one Hazarat Shah sent a slip to the Sub-Inspector Police stating merely 'Maine kapadeka blek pakada hai Aap fouran aiye.' On the basis of this slip, the police ... Licensing Order. The Bombay High Court held that the charge-sheet did not comply with the provisions of Rule 130, Defence of India Rules inasmuch as it did not contain the facts constituting such contravention, & therefore, the Court could not properly take cognizance of the offence charged.To the same effect are the decisions reported in AIR 1944 Bom 139 (A)'; AIR ... objected to his trial for the offence on the ground that the police charge sheet on the basis of which the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence is not a report by a public servant and is, therefore, not in compliance with Section 11, Essential Civil Supplies Act, 1946 under which Act the Cotton Textile Control Order was made. The objection was rejected by ... committed an offence under Section 8, Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of Samvat 2006. It was argued that this charge-sheet was not in compliance with Section 11 and the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence on this report. In support of this contention, learned Counsel cited before me - Jayantilal Jagjivan v. Emperor AIR 1944 Bom 139 (A) and - Purushottam ...

May 13 2013

IFCI FACTORS LTD. Vs. KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD.

  • Decided on : 13-May-2013

Court : Delhi

... police authorities, if required.22. Publication of the citation of the petition be effected in the Official Gazette, The Times of India (English) and Jansatta (Hindi) in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules, 1959. The cost of publication shall be borne by IFL. The Directors of KRIL are directed to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 454 of the Act ... Bombay High Court in Shantilal Khusaldas and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. is distinguishable on facts.20. In the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that in the present case there is an admission of liability by KRIL in the sum of Rs. 1,80,21,139 ... Sections 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1) (a) and one under Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1) (c) of the Act. It was observed that there cannot be a dispute with regard to the proposition that without even serving a notice as required under Section 434 (1) (a) a creditor can seek for winding up of a company under Section 433 (e) read with Section ... Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1) (c) of the Act. It was observed that there cannot be a dispute with regard to the proposition that without even serving a notice as required under Section 434 (1) (a) a creditor can seek for winding up of a company under Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1) (c) of the Act ... counsel for IFL to KRIL was a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and not a notice seeking winding up under Sections 433 (3) and 434 of the Act. In the absence of any such legal notice no ...

Aug 22 1950

Fram Nusservanji Balsara Vs. State of Bombay and Anr.

  • Decided on : 22-Aug-1950

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1951Bom210; (1950)52BOMLR799; ILR1951Bom17

... the Government of Bombay, in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 139(c), has exempted persons who fall under Section 40(1)(c) and who are not citizens of India from the provisions of proviso (a) (i) read with the explanation to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40. As pointed out hereafter, we have come to the conclusion that Section 139(c) is ... duties. Chapter IX is procedural. Under Section 136, power is given to a Prohibition Officer not below the rank of the Commissioner and Collector and any police-officer not below the rank of the Superintendent; of Police in Greater Bombay or the Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere, if be is satisfied that any person is acting or is likely to act in a mariner which amounts to ... proviso (a) (i) read with the explanation to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40. Now it appears that by Notifn. No. 10484/ 45(e) dated 30-3-1950 the Government of Bombay, in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 139(c), has exempted persons who fall under Section 40(1)(c) and who are not citizens of India from the provisions ... who fall under Section 40(1)(c) and who are not citizens of India from the provisions of proviso (a) (i) read with the explanation to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40. As pointed out hereafter, we have come to the conclusion that Section 139(c) is ultra vires the Legislature and this notification is, threfore, ultra vires of the Bombay Government. But ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //