TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME WORLD WIDE : TERROR FUNDING BUILDER MAFIA OF OSAMA AND ELIZABETH ENGLAND 1937 ARYA SAMAJ/ARTICLE 370 OF KASHMIR AND INA TRIAL IPC SECTION 109

Sunday, June 1, 2008

TERROR FUNDING BUILDER MAFIA OF OSAMA AND ELIZABETH ENGLAND 1937 ARYA SAMAJ/ARTICLE 370 OF KASHMIR AND INA TRIAL SECTION 109

THE JESSICA LAL MURDER CASE PERTAINS TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE KASHMIRI BRAHMINS ISSUE WHOSE LANDS WERE USURPED BY THUGS OF THE UNDERWORLD DUE TO THE ALLIANCE OF THE BUILDER MAFIA OF OSAMA BIN LADEN GROUP OF BUILDERS,KILLER COMPANIES LIKE RELIANCE AND STERLITE OF ENGLAND ,WHO ALSO CRIMINALLY INTIDIMATED THE ARMED FORCES OF INDIA ,THE STAGE BEING SET BY THE SECTION 109 OF THE IPC WHICH WAS IMPOSED ON THE INA TRIAL SOLDIERS .INDIA IS FREE ON PAPERS AND ANY COUNTRY WHICH TRIES TO RUN TERROR WITH SUCH CASES ON LEADERS WHO ARE TRYING TO FIGHT AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME AND ISLAMIC TERROR COUPLED WITH ARYA SAMAJ MENACE COMES UNDER :-

Section 108A. Abetment in India of offences outside India

¹[108A. Abetment in India of offences outside India.

A person abets as offence within the meaning of this in Code who, in ²[India],

abets the commission of any act without and beyond ²

[India] which would constitute an offence if committed in ²[India].

ANY OFFENCES COMMITED IN INDIA BY ANY BRITISHER ARE COVERED UNDER THE ENGLISH LAW AS THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IS A DIRECT COPY OF THE ENGLISH LAWS TO MOSTLY ALL THE COMMON WEALTHS
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Vicarious_liability
INDIA BEING A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH COMMON WEALTH
Vicarious_liability

[edit] The liability of corporations in tort

In English law, a corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the frauds of its directors or senior officers. If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares. The Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.

So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is significantly more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud. In Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.

THUS UNDER SECTION 108 A ,THE GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN UNDER THE COMMON WEALTH ARE LIABLE FOR TERROR MONEY AND HAWALA MONEY BEING USED FOR TERRORISM IN INDIA AND THE SUPREME AUTHORITY PUNISHABLE,AS PER COMPANIES LISTED ON THEIR STOCK EXCHANGE.

AS FOR MY INTERVENTION ,THE CASE PERTAINS TO CRIMINAL INTIDIMATION OF THE ARMED FORCES OF INDIA BY OSAMA BIN LADEN GROUP OF COMPANIES FUNCTIONING IN INDIA WHO ATTACKED A PUBLIC LEADER ,TRYING FOR PEACE IN KASHMIR BY IMPLICATING HIS SON AND VIOLATING PEACE AND INSULTING RELIGION OF HINDUS BY SYMBOLIC MISUSE OF NAMES.IT PERTAINS TO CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE AND MASS GENOCIDE IN KASHMIR OF INNOCENT CITIZENS OF INDIA BY A FOREIGN POWER ,INSPITE OF INDIA BEING INDEPENDENT AS WELL A MEMBER OF THE COMMON WEALTH.

THE DURRAND LINE IS THE FIRST SUBJECT TO BE RAISED ,WHOSE LEASE WITH THE BRITISH EXPIRED IN 1993 AND IF THAT IS NON EXISTENT THEN HOW IS BRITAIN SHELTERING CRIMINALS WRECKING HAVOC WITH INDIAN FABRIC OF PEACE?

AS FAR AS CONVERSION ISSUES ARE CONCERNED FOR WHICH JUDEO WAS TARGETTED THERE SHOULD BE A TOTAL ANTI CONVERSION LAW IN DELHI TOO PENALIZING:-

1.ANY HINDU CONVERTING TO ANY OTHER RELIGION WITHOUT INFORMING THE LOCAL MAGISTRATE

2.ANY LEGAL CONVERT TO MUSLIM RELIGION ,CONVERTING TO ARYA SAMAJ WITHOUT INFORMING THE LOCAL MAGISTRATE.

in QuickList

Queen Elizabeth II Highway
Highway 2

All the builders working under the patronage of Maharani queen bitch Elizabeth and Islamic terrorist builder Mecca Osama

Bin[giving kachra and Latrine to all Hinduism] LADEN

SHOULD VOLUNTARILY DO ATMA SAMPARAN BEFORE THE POLICE OF INDIA . THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES LISTED ON THE LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN TERROR FUNDING

1.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES-MUKESH AMBANI