Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2005

Amish Devgan vs Union Of India on 7 December, 2020

In the context of Section 153A(b) we would hold that public tranquillity, given the nature of the consequence in the form of punishment of imprisonment of up to three years, must be read in a restricted sense synonymous with public order and safety and not normal law and order issues that do not endanger the public 114 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo was overruled on a different point in Prakash Kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 160 of 2020 Page 97 of 128 interest at large. It cannot be given the widest meaning so as to fall foul of the requirement of reasonableness which is a constitutional mandate. Clause (b) of Section 153A, therefore, has to be read accordingly to satisfy the constitutional mandate. We would interpret the words ‘public tranquillity’ in clause (b) would mean ordre publique a French term that means absence of insurrection, riot, turbulence or crimes of violence and would also include all acts which will endanger the security of the State, but not acts which disturb only serenity, and are covered by the third and widest circle of law and order. Public order also includes acts of local significance embracing a variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order. Public Order in clause (2) to Article 19 nor the statutory provisions make any distinction between the majority and minority groups with reference to the population of the particular area though as we have noted above this may be of some relevance. When we accept the principle of local significance, as a sequitur we must also accept that majority and minority groups could have, in a given case, reference to a local area.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 72 - S Khanna - Full Document

Krishnan M.C vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2021

44. The learned Prosecutor further placed reliance on Prakash kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat (2005 (2) SCC 409) and May George v. Special Tahsildar and others (2010 (13) SCC 98) wherein it has been held while considering a provision as mandatory or directory, that the Court has to examine the context in which the provision is used and the purpose it seeks to achieve.
Kerala High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 1 - M R Anitha - Full Document

Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 31 March, 2009

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to the extracts of the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge and elaborately argued that the petitioner was not part of the criminal conspiracy charged 3 against him. He has been acquitted by the Special Judge for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA and no appeal has been filed against that by the State and the conviction is only under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25 (1B) of the Arms Act. It was argued that the conviction itself for the above offences are based on alleged confession made by the petitioner which was not strictly admissible under the law. It was also contended that the alleged possession of the weapon by the petitioner was much prior to the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by other accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the fact that though under Section 12 of the TADA the Designated Court, when trying any offence, was competent to try any other offence with which the accused may, under Cr.P.C., be charged at the same trial if the offence is connected with such other offence. It was argued that the finding of the Designated Court would show that offence, if any, allegedly found against the petitioner was not even connected with other offences for which other accused were charged and, in that event, Section 15 of the TADA itself would not be 4 attracted and the confession allegedly made by the petitioner to the police officer was not admissible. The learned counsel further argued that some of the observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Prakash Kumar vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409, require slight clarification. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has got fair chance of appeal filed by him being allowed and, if the conviction and sentence is not suspended, he would be seriously prejudiced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 27 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Girish Gautam S/O Malaram Sharma ... vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2018

clearly suggested that the Court would apply its mind and by virtue of some reasoned directions direct that the sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. The Court while dealing with stringent laws and particularly penal statutes is required to ensure that the intention of the Legislature is not frustrated and even if necessary it should take recourse to the rule of purposive construction as more the stringent is the law less is the discretion with the Court. While dealing with such enactments, even on the first principle the course which is favourable to further the legislative cause should be adopted and an interpretation which would reduce the legislation to futility should be avoided. One provision alone need not be construed in isolation and it is always preferred rule of interpretation that a provision should be construed with reference to other relevant provisions as well as the scheme of law underlining the said provisions. (See Prakash Kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto v. State Of Gujarat., (2005) 2 SCC 409).
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1