Posts

Showing posts from November, 2021

Section 155 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 155 Railways Act, 1989:   Entering into a compartment reserved or resisting entry into a compartment not reserved.— (1) If any passenger— (a) having entered a compartment wherein no berth or seat has been reserved by a railway administration for his use, or (b) having unauthorisedly occupied a berth or seat reserved by a railway administration for the use of another passenger, refuses to leave it when required to do so by any railway servant authorised in this behalf, such railway servant may remove him or cause him to be removed, with the aid of any other person, from the compartment, berth or seat, as the case may be, and he shall also be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. (2) If any passenger resists the lawful entry of another passenger into a compartment not reserved for the use of the passenger resisting, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Rel

Section 154 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 154 Railways Act, 1989:   Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway by rash or negligent act or omission.—If any person in a rash and negligent manner does any act, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 154 Railways Act, 1989:   The Union Of India vs Bhasawal Municipal Council on 16 December, 1980 Bombay High Court  State Of Karnataka vs Mahalingappa S/O Amrut on 28 November, 2018 Karnataka High Court  State Of Karnataka vs Mantesh S/O Ramappa Badagur on 3 December, 2018 Karnataka High Court  Rafeek vs Railway Protection Force on 26 August, 2019 Karnataka High Court  Union Of India vs Shefaliben Vinodbhai Shah Wife  on 18 September, 2018 Gujarat High Court  Smt

Section 153 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 153 Railways Act, 1989:  Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway by wilful act or omission.—If any person by any unlawful act or by any wilful omission or neglect, endangers or causes to be endangered the safety of any person travelling on or being upon any railway, or obstructs or causes to be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any rolling stock upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 153 Railways Act, 1989:   Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 February, 2011 Bombay High Court  Union Of India (Uoi), South  vs Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah And on 8 December, 2003 Andhra High Court  Smt Shanthamma @ Vasantha vs Union Of India on 13 February, 2019 Karnataka High Court Union Of India vs Tabassum Praveen & Ors on 25 November, 2010 Delhi High Court  Jitendra Singh Baghel @ Banti vs State Of Mp on 20 Octob

Section 152 Railways Act, 1989

   Section 152 Railways Act, 1989:  Maliciously hurting or attempting to hurt persons travelling by railway.—If any person unlawfully throws or causes to fall or strike at, against, into or upon any rolling stock forming part of a train, any wood, stone or other matter or thing with intent, or with knowledge that he is likely to endanger the safety of any person being in or upon such rolling stock or in or upon any other rolling stock forming part of the same train, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to  Section 152 Railways Act, 1989:    The Union Of India vs Bhasawal Municipal Council on 16 December, 1980 Bombay High Court  State Of Karnataka vs Mahalingappa S/O Amrut  on 28 November, 2018 Karnataka High Court  State Of Karnataka vs Mantesh S/O Ramappa Badagur on 3 December, 2018 Karnataka High Court  Rafeek vs Railway Protection Force

Section 151 Railways Act, 1989

 Section 151 Railways Act, 1989:   Damage to or destruction of certain railway properties.— (1) If any person, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause damage or destruction to any property of a railway referred to in sub-section (2), causes by fire, explosive substance or otherwise, damage to such property or destruction of such property, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. (2) The properties of a railway referred to in sub-section (1) are railway track, bridges, station buildings and installations, carriages or wagons, locomotives, signalling, telecommunications, electric traction and block equipments and such other properties as the Central Government being of the opinion that damage thereto or destruction thereof is likely to endanger the operation of a railway, may, by notification, specify. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 151 Railways A

Section 150 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 150 Railways Act, 1989:  Maliciously wrecking or attempting to wreck a train.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if any person unlawfully,— (a) puts or throws upon or across any railways, any wood, stone or other matter or thing; or (b) takes up, removes, loosens or displaces any rail, sleeper or other matter or things belonging to any railway; or (c) turns, moves, unlocks or diverts any points or other machinery belonging to any railway; or (d) makes or shows, or hides or removes, any signal or light upon or near to any railway; or (e) does or causes to be done or attempts to do any other act or thing in relation to any railway, with intent or with knowledge that he is likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling on or being upon the railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be ment

Section 149 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 149 Railways Act, 1989:  Making a false claim for compensation.—If any person requiring compensation from a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any consignment makes a claim which is false or which he knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 149 Railways Act, 1989:    In Re: Thaikkottathil Kunhaeen  vs Unknown on 2 August, 1923 Madras High Court  In Re: Vasudeva Mudali And Ors. vs Unknown on 11 March, 1929 Madras High Court  Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Rameshwar Prasad on 9 March, 1982 Madhya Pradesh High Court  Governor General Of India In  vs The Jubilee Mills Ltd. on 5 February, 1952 Bombay High Court  Salim Mohmad And Anr. vs The State Of Gujarat on 18 December, 1971 Gujarat High Court  C. Kunhammad And

Section 145 Railways Act, 1989

 Section 145 Railways Act, 1989:   Drunkenness or nuisance.—If any person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway— (a) is in a state of intoxication; or (b) commits any nuisance or act of indecency or uses abusive or obscene language; or (c) wilfully or without excuse interferes with any amenity provided by the railway administration so as to affect the comfortable travel of any passenger, he may be removed from the railway by any railway servant and shall, in addition to the forfeiture of his pass or ticket, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than— (a) a fine of one hundred rupees in the case of conviction for the first offence; and (b) imprisonment of one month and a fine of two hundred and fifty rupees, in the case of conviction for

Section 144 Railways Act, 1989

 Section 144 Railways Act, 1989:  Prohibition on hawking, etc., and begging.—(I) If any person canvasses for any custom or hawks or exposes for sale any article whatsoever in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the railway administration in this behalf, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that, in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine of one thousand rupees. (2) If any person begs in any railway carriage or upon a railway station, he shall be liable for punishment as provided under sub-section (1) (3) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be removed from the railway carriage or any part of the railway or railway station, as the

Section 143 Railways Act, 1989

 Section 143 Railways Act, 1989:  Penalty for unauthorised carrying on of business of procuring and supplying of railway tickets.— (1) If any person, not being a railway servant or an agent authorised in this behalf,— (a) carries on the business of procuring and supplying tickets for travel on a railway or from reserved accommodation for journey in a train; or (b) purchases or sells or attempts to purchase or sell tickets with a view to carrying on any such business either by himself or by any other person, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and shall also forfeit the tickets which he so procures, supplies, purchases, sells or attempts to purchase or sell: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for a term of one month or a fine of five thous

Section 142 Railways Act, 1989

 Section 142 Railways Act, 1989:  Penalty for transfer of tickets.— (1) If any person not being a railway servant or an agent authorised in this behalf— (a) sells or attempts to sell any ticket or any half of a return ticket; or (b) parts or attempts to part with the possession of a return ticket against which reservation of a seat or berth has been made or any half of a return ticket or a season ticket, in order to enable any other person to travel therewith, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, and shall also forfeit the ticket which he sells or attempts to sell or parts or attempts to part. (2) If any person purchases any ticket referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or obtains the possession of any ticket referred to in clause (b) of that sub-section from any person other than a railway servant or an agent authorised in this behalf, he shall be punishable with

Section 141 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 141 Railways Act, 1989:   Needlessly interfering with means of communication in a train.—If any passenger or any other person, without reasonable and sufficient cause, makes use of, or interferes with, any means provided by a railway administration in a train for communication between passengers and the railway servant in charge of the train, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that, in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, where a passenger, without reasonable and sufficient cause, makes use of the alarm chain provided by a railway administration, such punishment shall not be less than— (a) a fine of five hundred rupees, in the case of conviction for the first offence; and (b) imprisonment for three months in case of conviction for the second or subsequent offence. Supreme Court of India

Section 138 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 138 Railways Act, 1989:  Levy of excess charge and fare for travelling without proper pass or ticket or beyond authorised distance.— (1) If any passenger,— (a) being in or having alighted from a train, fails or refuses to present for examination or to deliver up his pass or ticket immediately on a demand being made therefor under section 54, or (b) travels in a train in contravention of the provisions of section 55, he shall be liable to pay, on the demand of any railway servant authorised in this behalf, the excess charge mentioned in sub-section (3) in addition to the ordinary single fare for the distance which he has travelled or, where there is any doubt as to the station from which he started, the ordinary single fare from the station from which the train originally started, or, if the tickets of passengers travelling in the train have been examined since the original starting of the train, the ordinary single fare from the place where the tickets were so examined or in

Section 137 Railways Act, 1989

  Section 137 Railways Act, 1989:   Fraudulently travelling or attempting to travel without proper pass or ticket.— (1) If any person, with intent to defraud a railway administration,— (a) enters or remains in any carriage on a railway or travels in a train in contravention of section 55, or (b) uses or attempts to use a single pass or a single ticket which has already been used on a previous journey, or in the case of a return ticket, a half thereof which has already been so used, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine of five hundred rupees. (2) The person referred to in sub-section (1) shall also be liable to pay the excess charge mentioned in sub-section (3) in addition to the ordinary single fare for the

Section 11 The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

  Section 11 The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971:  Offences and penalty.— 34 [ (1) If any person unlawfully occupies any public premises, he shall be punishable with simple imprison­ment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that a person who, having been lawfully in occupation of any public premises by virtue of any authority (whether by way of grant, allotment or by any other mode whatsoever) continues to be in occupation of such premises after such authority has ceased to be valid, shall not be guilty of such offence.] 35 [(2) ] If any person who has been evicted from any public prem­ises under this Act again occupies the premises without authority for such occupation, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year. or with fine which may extend to 3[five thousand rupees], or with both. 35 [(3) ] Any magistrate convicting a person under

Section 15 Public Gambling Act, 1867

 Section 15 Public Gambling Act, 1867:  Penalty for subsequent offence.—Whoever, having been convicted of an offence punishable under section 3 or section 4 of this Act shall again be guilty of any offence punishable under either of such sections, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to double the amount of punishment to which he would have been liable for the first commission of an offence of the same description: Provided that he shall not be liable in any case to a fine exceeding six hundred rupees, or to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 15 Public Gambling Act, 1867: Soni Bachu Lakhuman vs The State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 1960 Gujarat High Court  Suraj Prakash And Ors. vs State on 18 January, 1963 Allahabad High Court  Sarat Chandra Ghatak And Ors. vs Corporation Of Calcutta And Anr. on 21 November, 1957 Calcutta High Court  Abid Ali S/O Sayyad Ali vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on

Section 7 Public Gambling Act, 1867

Section 7 Public Gambling Act, 1867:    Penalty on persons arrested for giving false names and addresses.—If any person found in any common gaming-house entered by any Magistrate or officer of police under the provisions of this Act, upon being arrested, by any such officer or upon being brought before any Magistrate, on being required by such officer or Magistrate to give his name and address, shall refuse or neglect to give the same, or shall give any false name and address, he may, upon conviction before the same or any other Magistrate, be adjudged to pay any penalty not exceeding five hundred rupees, together with such costs as to such Magistrate shall appear reasonable, and on the non-payment of such penalty and costs, or in the first instance, if to such Magistrate it shall seem fit, may be imprisoned for any period not exceeding one month. STATE AMENDMENTS (Assam) —In section 7, for the words “five hunderd rupees” substitute the words “one thousand rupees”. [Assam Act 18 of 197

Section 4 Public Gambling Act, 1867

  Section 4 Public Gambling Act, 1867:  Penalty for being found in gaming-house.—Whoever is found in any such house, walled enclosure, room or place, playing or gaming with cards, dice, counters, money or other instruments of gaming or is found there present for the purpose of gaming, whether playing for any money, wager, stake or otherwise, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred rupees, or to imprisonment of either description, as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), for any term not exceeding one month; and any person found in any common gaming-house during any gaming or playing therein shall be presumed, until the contrary be proved, to have been there for the purposes of gaming. STATE AMENDMENTS Himachal Pradesh.—In section 4— Same as that of under section 3. [Himachal Pradesh Act 30 of 1976, Sec. 4]. Madhya Pradesh.—In section 4,— (i) for the words “house, walled enclosure, room or place” wherever they occur, the words “house, room, tent, enclosure, space, v

Section 33 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

 Section 33 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:  Penalty for not discharging duty by Protection Officer.—If any Protection Officer fails or refuses to discharges his duties as directed by the Magistrate in the protection order without any sufficient cause, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 33 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:  Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 Joseph Shine vs Union Of India on 27 September, 2018 To download this dhara / Section of  Actuaries Act 2006 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 31 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

 Section 31 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:   Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent.— (1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both. (2) The offence under sub-section (1) shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused. (3) While framing charges under sub-section (1), the Magistrates may also frame charges under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case La

Section 73 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001

 Section 73 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001:  Penalty for subsequent offence.—Whoever, having already been convicted of an offence under this Act is again convicted of such offence shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty lakh rupees, or both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 73 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Not Yet Available To download this dhara / Section of Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 72 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001

 Section 72 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001:  Penalty for falsely representing a variety as registered.—Whoever makes any representation with respect to the denomination of a variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material not being variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material registered under this Act, to the effect that it is a variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material registered under this Act or otherwise represents any variety, or its propagating material, or essentially derived variety or its propagating material not registered under this Act to the effect that it is registered under this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to five la

Section 71 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001

 Section 71 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001:  Penalty for selling varieties to which false denomination is applied, etc.—Any person who sells, or exposes for sale, or has in his possession for sale or for any purpose of trade or production of any variety to which any false denomination is applied or to which an indication of the country or place in which such variety was made or produced or the name and address of the breeder of such variety registered under this Act has been falsely made, shall, unless he proves— (a) that having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence against this section, he had at the time of commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the denomination of such variety or that any offence had been committed in respect of indication of the country or place in which such variety registered under this Act, was made or produced or the name and address of the breeder of such variety, (b) that

Section 70 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001

  Section 70 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001:   Penalty for applying false denomination, etc.— (1) Any person who— (a) applies any false denomination to a variety; or (b) indicates the false name of a country or place or false name and address of the breeder of a variety registered under this Act in the course of trading such variety, shall, unless he proves that he acted, without intent to defraud, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, or with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 70 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Not Yet Available To download this dhara / Section of Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 11 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

 Section 11 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:  Enhanced penalty on subsequent conviction. Whoever having already been convicted of an offence under this Act or of an abetment of such offence is again convicted of any such offence or abetment, 1 shall, on convection, be punishable- (a) for the second offence, with imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and not more than one year, and alsowith fine which shall be not less than two hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees; (b) for the third offence or any offence subsequent to the third offence, with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than two years, and also with fine which shall be not less than five hundred rupees and not more than one thousand rupees Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 11 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Sukhdev Singh vs Mukhtiar Singh And Ors on 9 January, 2017 Manpreet Singh Gill vs Kuljit Singh on 14 July,

Section 10 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

 Section 10 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:  Abetment of offence. Whoever abets any offence under this Act shall be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. 2 Explanation.- A public servant who wilfully neglects the investigation of any offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to have abetted an offence punishable under this Act. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 10 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:    The State Of Tripura vs The Province Of East Bengalunion  on 4 December, 1950 To download this dhara / Section of Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 7A Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

 Section 7A Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:  Unlawful compulsory labour when to be deemed to be a practice of untouchability. (1) Whoever compels any person, on the ground of" untouchability", to do any scavenging or sweeping or to remove any carcass or to flay any animal or to remove the umbilical cord or to do any other job of a similar nature, shall be deemed to have enforced a disability arising out of" untouchability". (2) Whoever is deemed under sub- section (1) to have enforced a disability arising out of" untouchability" shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months and not more than six months and also with fine which shall not be less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 7A Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Safai Karamchari Andolan And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 March, 2014

Section 7 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

 Section 7 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:  Punishment for other offences arising out of" untouchability". (1) Whoever- (a) prevents any person from exercising any right accruing to him by reason of the abolition of" untouchability" under article 17 of the Constitution; or (b) molests, injures, annoys, obstructs or causes or attempts to cause obstruction to any person in the exercise of any such right or molests, injures, annoys or boycotts any person by reason of his having exercised any such right; or (c) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, incites or encourages any person or class of persons or the public generally to practise" untouchability" in any form whatsoever; 2 or] (d) 2 insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of" untouchability", a member of a Scheduled Caste;] 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months an

Section 6 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

  Section 6 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Punishment for refusing to sell goods to render services. Whoever on the ground of" untouchability" refuses to sell any goods or refuses to render any- service to any person at. the same time and place and on the same terms and conditions at or on which such goods are sold or services are rendered to other persons in the ordinary course of business 1 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.   Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 6 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Rajendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary on 3 July, 2010 Allahabad High Court  Dalip Singh vs Faquir Singh And Another on 16 May, 1996 Punjab-Haryana High Court  Laxman Jayaram Shant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 April, 1980 Bombay High

Section 5 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

  Section 5 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:  Punishment for refusing to admit persons to hospitals etc. Whoever on the round of" untouchability"- (a) refuses admission to any person to any hospital, dispensary, educational institution or any hostel 4 , if such hospital, dispensary, educational institution or hostel is established or maintained for the benefit of the general public or any section thereof; or (b) does any act which discriminates against any such person after admission to any of the aforesaid institutions; 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees   Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 5 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2018 Sajjan Singh, Dule Singh And vs State Of

Section 4 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

  Section 4 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:  Punishment for enforcing social disabilities. Whoever on the ground of" untouchability" enforces against any person any disability with regard to- (i) access to any shop, public restaurant, hotel or place of public entertainment; or (ii) the use of any utensils, and other articles kept in any public restaurant, hotel, dharmshala, sarai or musafirkhana for the use of the general public or of 4 any section thereof]; or (iii) the practice of any profession or the carrying on of any occupation, trade or business 5 or employment in any job]; or (iv) the use of, or access to, any river, stream, spring, well, tank, cistern, water- tap or other watering place, or any bathing ghat, burial or cremation ground, any sanitary convenience, any road, or passage, or any other place of public resort which other members of the public, or 4 [ any section thereof], have a right to use or have access to; or (v) the use of, or access to, any place

Section 3 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955

  Section 3 Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955:   Punishment for enforcing religious disabilities. Whoever on the ground of" untouchability" prevents any person- (a) from entering any place of public worship which is open to other persons professing the same religion 3 or any section thereof, as such person; or (b) from worshipping or offering prayers or performing any religious service in any place of public worship, or bathing in, or using the waters of, any sacred tank, well, spring or water- course, 1 river or lake or bathing at any ghat of such tank, water- course, river or lake] in the same manner and to the same extent as is permissible to other persons professing or any section thereof, as such the same religion, 2 or any section there of, as such person; 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall be rot less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees].

Section 11 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

  Section 11 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006:  Punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages.- (1) Where a child contracts a child marriage, any person having charge of the child, whether as parent or guardian or any other person or in any other capacity, lawful or unlawful, including any member of an organization or association of persons who does any act to promote the marriage or permits it to be solemnised, or negligently fails to prevent it from being solemnised, including attending or participating in a child marriage, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend upto one lakh rupees: Provided that no woman shall be punishable with imprisonment. (2) For the purposes of this section, it shall be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that where a minor child has contracted a marriage, the person having charge of such minor child has negligently failed to

Section 10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

  Section 10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006:  Punishment for solemnising a child marriage.-Whoever performs, conducts or directs or abets any child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees unless he proves that he had reasons to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006:   C.Arumugam vs Mahalakshmi Madras High Court N.Rasu @ Velayutham (A3) vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2016 Madras High Court  Ravi Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 25 January, 2019 Punjab-Haryana High Court  Govardhan Ranglal Vyas vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ram  on 19 December, 2018 Bombay High Court  Sau. Asha W/O. Baburao Upadhyaya vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O on 19 December, 2018 Bombay High Court  Rameshwarlal Heamram Jat vs The

Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

 Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006:  Punishment for male adult marrying a child.-Whoever, being a male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006:  Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain (C) vs Commissioner Of Police,on 19 September, 1989 To download this dhara / Section of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 21 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005

  Section 21 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005:   Penalty for unauthorized use of certain uniforms.—If any private security guard or supervisor wears the uniform of the Army, Air force, Navy or any other armed forces of the Union or Police or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the distinctive marks of that uniform, he and the proprietor of the private security agency shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 21 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005:    Mohit Sharma vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Others on 21 May, 2013 To download this dhara / Section of  Actuaries Act 2006 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 20 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005

  Section 20 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005:  Punishment for contravention of certain provisions.— (1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty‑five thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Any person or private security agency who contravenes, the provisions of sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Act, shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to twenty‑five thousand rupees, in addition to suspension or cancellation of the licence. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 20 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005:    Amit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2019 Mohit Sharma vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Others on 21 May, 2013 Black Arrow Security And vs Secretary on 22 February, 2017 Security Association Of South vs The Home Secretary on 22 December, 2016 Nishant vs The State Of Madhya Pr

Section 54 Prisons Act, 1894

 Section 54 Prisons Act, 1894:  Offences by prison-subordinates.— (1) Every Jailer or officer of a prison subordinate to him who shall be guilty of any viola­tion of duty or wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order made by competent authority, or who shall withdraw from the duties of his office without permission, or without having given previous notice in writing of his inten­tion for the period of two months, or who shall wilfully overstay any leave granted to him, or who shall engage without authority in any employment other than his prison-duty, or who shall be guilty of cowardice, shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, or to both. (2) No person shall under this section be punished twice for the same offence. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 54 Prisons Act, 1894:  Ashok Kumar Alias Golu vs Unio

Section 42 Prisons Act, 1894

  Section 42 Prisons Act, 1894:  Penalty for introduction or removal of prohibited articles into or from prison and communication with prisoners.—Whoever, contrary to any rule under section [59] introduces or removes or attempts by any means whatever to introduce or remove, into or from any prison, or supplies or attempts to supply to any prison­er outside the limits of a prison, any prohibited article, and every officer of a prison who, contrary to any such rule, knowingly suffers any such article to be introduced into or removed from any prison, to be possessed by any prisoner, or to be supplied to any prisoner outside the limits of a prison, and whoever, contrary to any such rule, communicates or attempts to communicate with any prisoner, and whoever abets any offence made punishable by this section, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be liable to imprison­ment for a term not exceeding six months, or to fine not exceed­ing two hundred rupees, or to both. Supreme Court of Indi

Section 7 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911

  Section 7 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911:   Penality for delivery of speeches in public places.—Whoever, in a proclaimed area, in a public place or a place of public resort, otherwise than at a public meeting held in accordance with, or exempted from, the provisions of section 4, without the permission in writing of the Magistrate of the district or of the Commissioner of police, as the case may be, previously obtained, delivers any lecture, address or speech on any subject likely to cause disturbance or public excitement to persons then present, may be arrested without warrant and shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 7 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911:  Not Yet Available To download this dhara / Section of  Actuaries Act 2006 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 6 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911

 Section 6 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911:   Penalties.— (1) Any person concerned in the promotion or conduct of a public meeting held in a proclaimed area contrary to the provisions of Section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. (2) Any public meeting which has been prohibited under Section 5 shall be deemed to be an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code and of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 6 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911:  Not Yet Available To download this dhara / Section of  Actuaries Act 2006 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

Section 4 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911

  Section 4 prevention of seditious meetings Act, 1911:  Notice to be given of public meetings.— (1) No public meeting for the furtherance or discussion of any subject likely to cause disturbance or public excitement, or for the exhibition or distribution of any writing or printed matter relating to any such subject, shall be held in any proclaimed area— (a) unless written notice of the intention to hold such meeting and of the time and place of such meeting has been given to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, at least three days previously; or (b) unless permission to hold such meeting has been obtained in writing from the District Magistate or the Commissioner or Police, as the case may be. Power of Magistrate to cause Report to be taken (2) The District Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class authorised by the District Magistrate in this behalf may, by order in writing, depute one or more police-officers, not being below the rank of he

Section 63(1) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002

  Section 63(1) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002:  Punishment for false information or failure to give information, etc.— (1) Any person wilfully and maliciously giving false information and so causing an arrest or a search to be made under this Act shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or both. (2) If any person,— (a) being legally bound to state the truth of any matter relating to an offence under section 3, refuses to answer any question put to him by an authority in the exercise of its powers under this Act; or (b) refuses to sign any statement made by him in the course of any proceedings under this Act, which an authority may legally require to sign; or (c) to whom a summon is issued under section 50 either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time, omits to attend or produce books of account or documents at th