Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Explosives Rules, 1983

3 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

DURGA PRASAD GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH C.B.L.

2003 INSC 51125 September 2003Dismissed

The appellant, D.P. Gupta, was charged under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the TADA Act for possessing large quantities of gelatine, detonators and other explosive materials found in his godowns and an underground room. The key issue was whether he had "conscious possession"—i.e., both physical control

IN RE: NOISE POLLUTION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS FOR RESTRICTING USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS AND HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMSversus.

2005 INSC 29718 July 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by engineer Anil K. Mittal after a 13‑year‑old girl died because loudspeaker noise prevented her cries from being heard. The petition sought stringent enforcement of laws restricting loudspeakers, firecrackers, vehicular horns and other high‑volume sound system

LOPCHAND NARUJI JAT AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2004 INSC 51410 September 2004Dismissed

The appellants were intercepted in Surat in 1988 with 180 detonators and were charged under Section 9-B(i)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 5 of TADA, 1985. The trial court convicted them only under the Explosives Act, sentencing each to one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000; the High Court affirmed th

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search