The respondent, a constable, convicted under section 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 but released on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was dismissed from service. He chal- lenged his dismissal before the High Court which ordered his reinstatement.
Judgement Date : september/1985, Citation : 1985 Latest Caselaw 197 SC
It is incumbant upon the competent authority, before exercising its power to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under his control, to follow the constitutional provisions contained in Article 311 and also the procedure prescribed in Rules 14 to 18 of the Centra.
Judgement Date : july/1985, Citation : 1985 Latest Caselaw 156 SC
Article 311 of the Constitution confers certain safeguards upon persons employed in civil capacities under the Union of India or a State. The first safeguard (which is given by clause (1) of Article 311) is that such person cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which.
Judgement Date : march/1985, Citation : 1985 Latest Caselaw 53 SC
The appellant was employed as a Cash Clerk in a Department under the administrative control of the Government of India. He was prosecuted for breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 500. He repaid the amount and pleaded guilty to the charge. The Magistrate accepting the plea convicted the appella.
Judgement Date : december/1982, Citation : 1982 Latest Caselaw 92 SC
For committing an offence under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as it stood on March 1, 1972, the maximum punishment prescribed was imprisonment for six years and fine. Section 21 of the Act provided that such offences were triable by a Presidency Magistrate or Mag.
Judgement Date : october/1978, Citation : 1978 Latest Caselaw 197 SC
The respondent was charged for violating rule 126 (H), 2(d)(ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules. 1963 relating to Gold Control and Rule 126-I before the Magistrate First Class, Bangalore and under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 126 of the Defence of India Rules. The Magistra.
Judgement Date : september/1976, Citation : 1976 Latest Caselaw 220 SC
The second appellant was the owner of a grocery shop and the first appellant was his salesman in the shop. Food Inspector Bhanot purchased a sample from appellant No. 1 of mustard oil after complying with the formalities prescribed by the Act. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was misbrand.
Judgement Date : march/1974, Citation : 1974 Latest Caselaw 66 SC
The appellant was convicted under s. 292 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine for selling a packet of playing cards portraying on the reverse luridly obscene naked pictures of men and women in pornographic sexual postures. The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.
Judgement Date : january/1974, Citation : 1974 Latest Caselaw 12 SC
on the question (1) whether the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, applies to offences under Customs Act, 1962, and to those under Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, relating to Gold Control, and (2) whether under the scheme of the Gold Control Rules, smuggled gold is not comprehended un.