Skip to content

Filter by :

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

Feb 22 1999

People's Union for Civil Liberties & others Vs. The State of Maharasht ...

  • Decided on : 22-Feb-1999

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR608

... the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is also relied upon. Section 64(d) says that it shall be the duty of every police officer to apprehend without unreasonable delay persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension there is sufficient reason. In case of breach of this provision, a policeman is liable to face prosecution under section 145(2)(a) & (d) of the Bombay Police Act 1951. Section 161 ... aimed at a vulnerable part like the head.'Mr. Sebastian, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted a catena of judgments as under : ---1. The judgments, which deal with section 161 of the Bombay Police Act: State of Maharashtra v. Atmaram, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1786, vide paras 2, 3 and the last para in column 2 on page 1787. S.K. Jain v ... they later on came to know as Javed Fawda, being involved in several police cases. Javed Fawda was therefore, no bogey raised by the police'. However in para 139 the learned Judge says that 'Javed was not a known gangster or known dangerous criminal. There was no reason for the police to have gone to Sprott Road to apprehend or arrest Javed Fawda armed ... defence. In case of imminent danger to the life of a police officer on account of the criminal resisting arrest by opening fire, the police officer would be justified in causing his death. Section 64 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is also relied upon. Section 64(d) says that it shall be the duty of every police officer to apprehend without unreasonable delay persons whom he is legally ...

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 11 1994

Kartar Singh Vs. State Of Punjab.

  • Decided on : 11-Mar-1994

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1994SCC(3)569; JT1994(2)423

... Section 56 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 the constitutional validity of which has been approved as well as observations of this court in various decisions touching the question under consideration.283. The Constitution Bench of this Court while examining the constitutional validity of Section 27(1) of Bombay Police Act, 1902 (which provision is akin to Section 56 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 ... Act (19 of 1955); (2) The Punjab Security of State Act, 1949; (3) The Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949;(4) The West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970;(5) The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act (7 of 1986);(6) The J. & K. Enemy, Agents Ordinance No. VIII of San 2005;(7) The Maharashtra ... Sections 273, 275 and 276 of the Code. Both under the sessions trial and trial of warrant cases, the accused is given a discretionary right of deferring the cross examination of any witness or recalling any witness for further cross-examination [vide Sections 231(2), proviso to Section 242 sub-section (3)].278. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross- examination means and Sections 139 ...

May 05 2008

Dr. Anahita Pandole Vs. State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Depart ...

  • Decided on : 05-May-2008

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR72; 2008(3)BomCR516; (2008)110BOMLR1555

... Act, the police officer has the power to impound documents if a false document or incorrect document is produced. Further, as per Section 207, the police officer authorized by the State Government can even detain a vehicle used without proper certification and is in contravention to the various provisions like Sections 3, 4 and Section 39 of the Act.46. Chapter IV of Bombay Police Act ... of hoardings, they being violative of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the guidelines being violative of the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and for a direction that all hoardings be removed. Even validity of Section 8(4) of the Maharashtra Urban Areas Tree Preservation Act, 1975 was challenged and further had prayed for an order and ... applicable even in such field. In the case of Tata Press Limited v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited 1985 (5) SC 139, the Supreme Court clearly said that Government cannot create a monopoly and it is expected to act fairly even in relation to publication of advertisement. Not only that, principle of fairness is attracted in such cases but ... Act, 1888. The Corporation had the power to issue licences or permissions for display of hoarding which is equally applicable even to mobile hoarding vehicles. The Corporation claims that it has power under Sections 313 and 314 of the Act to remove vehicles if they are causing public inconvenience and the police has to only exercise regulatory powers in terms of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act ...

Mar 06 1992

Jodha Khoda Rabari and etc. etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and etc.

  • Decided on : 06-Mar-1992

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : 1992CriLJ3298

... invited our attention to the criminal behaviour of Jasubha. He referred to the deposition of Mansinh, which shows that in 1980, Jasubha was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and was sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment. Further, as stated by Mansinh, in October, 1981, when he went to Chomal, Jasubha had assaulted him by means of a ... by the word 'custody' in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is the actual or physical custody, even if it is not backed by any formal magisterial order authorising the police custody or interrogation, etc.115. Though not directly bearing on Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the judgment in the case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, : 1973CriLJ228 also furnishes a good ... the statement of Madhu Naran before the Executive Magistrate.When Madhu Naran was at Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar, Mr. Belim, the Executive Magistrate (P.W. 12) recorded his statement Exh. 139. In that statement, speaking about the incident, Madhu has stated that when they were returning from Manvillas, Darbars of Chomal obstructed their way and fired gun shots at them. Then ... , he came to his native place, and as discussed hereinabove, during his visits to his native place, he displayed criminal tendencies. Once he was convicted for an offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which of course, would be a minor offence. Thereafter, once he had assaulted Mansinh, P.W. 35 by means of a hockey stick on October 19, 1981. There ...

Apr 05 2000

Raman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

  • Decided on : 05-Apr-2000

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2001CriLJ800; 2001(2)WLC632; 2000(3)WLN39

... Section 197 Cr.P.C. are held to be not applicable, it is difficult to assume that provisions of Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 can be attracted.(87). In view of the above, 1 am of the considered opinion that neither the provisions of Section 42 of the Police Act, 1861, nor Section 161(1) that of the Bombay Police Act, comes to the rescue of the police ... of Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act.'(85). In State of Maharashtra vs. Atma Ram (113), the alleged act of assault and confinement of a suspect in police custody was held not to be acts done under the colour of duty or authority since the said ads had no reasonable connection or nexus to the duty or authority imposed upon the officer under the Bombay Police Act ... by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 'amounts to judicial impropriety' and such 'judicial adventurism cannot be permitted.' (Vide Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (139). In C.N. Rudramurthy vs. K. Barkathulla Khan & Ors. (140), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:'In deed, it is a matter of judicial discipline that requires ... the police under the colour of which this act was done and that such acts fall completely outside the duties and scope of the policeofficers and they were not entitled to the protection conferred by Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act.(86). In Bhanuprasad Hariparsad Dave & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (114), the Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ...

Mar 30 2010

The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Vs. Maroti S/o ...

  • Decided on : 30-Mar-2010

Court : Mumbai

... Sections 147, 148 of IPC and under Section 4 r/w Section 35 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and so also acquitting accused No. 4 Parasharam, accused No. 5 Purushottam for commission of offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and Under Section 4 r/w 25 of Arms Act and Under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act ... for serving ends of justice i.e. in the case of decision of this Court in the case of Dipak v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 All M.R. (Cri) 686 to which one of us A.P. Lavande, J. was party.135. In the premises aforesaid ... Parashram Jawalkar were possible by both these weapons and he had answered query made by police. PW 17 had identified Articles 'H & I' shown to him being the said swords and so also Exh.139 to 142 being provisional P.M. Reports given by him in respect of said all ... to Charge Exh.33 framed for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 of IPC r/w Section 4/24 of Arms Act, 135 of Bombay Police Act against all and for offence Under Section 452 of IPC against A1 and A2 vide their pleas ... Act against accused persons. All the said observations made by the trial court being again in conformity with the evidence narrated hereinabove, we are unable to find any fault with the same.126. Similarly the observations made by the trial court in paragraph No. 74 of the judgment reveals that Sub Divisional Magistrate had issued promulgation under Section 37 of Bombay Police Act ...

Mar 05 2014

Sushil Ansal Vs. State Thr.Cbi

  • Decided on : 05-Mar-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

... an offence under Section 304A IPC has always been seen in the fact situations in which the question arose. In Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Mah. L.J.423 (SC) this Court was dealing with a case where the regulations framed by the Commissioner of Police, under the Bombay Police Act, required the ... (1) that the state of things believed to exist would, if true, have justified the act done, and (2) the mistake must be reasonable, and (3) that the mistake relates to fact and not to law. 139. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal in their book Law of Crimes (23rd Edn.) Page 199 similarly explains ... Section 304-A of the IPC shall arise only if the prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another person s negligence. A subsequent decision of this Court in Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra ... v. State of Maharashtra AIR1968SC829has once again approved the view taken in Omkar Rampratap s case (supra) that the act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sine qua non for the death of the victim in a case under Section 304-A of the ... act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sine qua non for the death of the victim in a case under Section 304-A of the IPC.78. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Rustom Sherior Irani v. State of Maharashtra ...

Jun 26 1998

Orkay Industries Limited & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & other ...

  • Decided on : 26-Jun-1998

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR14

... section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. This order was passed without giving the accused any hearing. There was disobedience or order and prosecution was launched under section 142. The question was whether a conviction could be upheld. The Supreme Court held that the initial order of externment was rendered void ab initio as it did not comply with the provisions of the Act ... Bombay Cases Reporter pg. 274. In this case the question was whether a promoter was not liable for prosecution for offences under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. It was submitted that as per the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1981 Bombay ... section 441 of the Companies Act and section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951.25. Mr. Chinoy also relied upon the case of Gorakpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Nariman & Co., reported in (1947) 17 CompCas 87 wherein it is held that there is no provision in the Companies Act ... , 531/ S/97, 741/S/97, and 139/S/97 in the matter ... Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. The Court negatived this submission. The Court held that even though there may be no civil rights or liabilities created by an unregistered agreement, still the liability for criminal prosecution under the Act would lie.39. Mr. Jethmalani also relied upon the case of Pradeep Bhupatari Vasa v. Bombay ...

Jun 18 2001

Mohd. Mubarak Vs. State of Maharashtra

  • Decided on : 18-Jun-2001

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2002(1)MhLj360

... Shaikh s/o Shaikh Rahim with Police StationSakkardara and his involvement in Crime No. 200/2000 for offence under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On complaint filed on 23-3-2000 by the complainant Shaikh Asif s/o Shaikh Rahim with Police Station Sakkardara and his further ... of which myself was one of the members have taken a similar view in Anil v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (2) Cri.LR. 139, Sunil Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 262/1999 and Vijay Damaji Gaidhane v. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 172/2000 : (2001)3BOMLR126 , and the detention orders have been quashed on account ... 549/1999 under Sections 147, 248, 149, 324 of Indian Penal Code registered on complaint dated 16-9-1999 lodged by complainant Arif Shaikh s/o Shaikh Rahim with Police StationSakkardara and his involvement in Crime No. 200/2000 for offence under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On ... corpus challenging his detention dated 12-7-2000 passed by respondent No. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur invoking provisions under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act'). Along with the said order the detenu was served with the grounds of detention which was ...

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