Subhash Sharma vs Directorate Of Enforcement Government ... on 21 September, 2022
In Ashak Hussain Allah Detha and others (supra), the High Court
of Bombay held in para 7 as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.44 seconds)Documents citing
Ashak Hussain Allah Detha Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs (P.), ... on 9 January, 1990
Pawan Kumar Didwani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 August, 1994
13. A Single Bench decision of Bombay High Court, reported in 1990 Cri LJ 2201 (Ashok Hussain Allah Detha and Anr. v. Assistant Collector of Customs (P), Bombay and Anr.), relied on by Mr. Sen, in my view, does not come to an aid to the writ petitioner (sic). Mr. Sen, relying on paragraph 8 of the said decision contended that under Section 40 of the FERA, Investigating Officers cannot detain a suspect for interrogation as it is not authorised in law. In paragraph 8 of the said decision at page 2205 the Bombay High Court has observed as follows:
Ramu vs State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 1991
6. The first point to be considered is whether the period of stay of the petitioner in the hospital under police surveillance in the hospital can be considered as a period of custody. The learned Government Pleader relied on ASHAK HUSSAIN ALLAH DETHA ALIAS SIDDIQUE AND ANR. v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (P) BOMBAY AND ANR., 1990 Crl. LJ. 2201 wherein the Bombay High Court has held as follows:-
Smt. Kamalabai And Others vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 1991
The word 'Court' referred to in S. 37 of the Act came to be interpreted by Bombay High Court in a case reported in Ashak Hussain Allah Detha alias Siddique v. Assistant Collector of Customs (P), Bombay, 1990 Criminal Law Journal 2201. His Lordship of the Bombay High Court has held as follows (at page 2212) :-
1