Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Siraj Khan vs L. Himingliana And Others on 18 February, 1988

Urmila Naresh Mittal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 October, 1996

In Siraj Khan v. L. Himingliana reported in 1989 Cri. LJ 392 the Division Bench of Bombay High Court found that some handwitten documents were incomplete and illegible and unreadable and did not make out any sense. The Bombay High Court took the view that supply of illegible and unreadable documents amounted to non-supply of the said documents which violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court found that on the left side of the document there was an order passed by the Magistrate, releasing the detenu on certain conditions and that it was impossible to read the entire order. Some important words were completely missing. Argument was raised on behalf of the detaining authority that the order which was not readable dealt with the condition on which the bail was granted and since the detenu availed of the bail by complying with the conditions, there was no question of any prejudice to the detenu. This argument was repelled by the Bombay High Court by saying that it was no answer to the argument that the document was illegible and unreadable and it was held that it would amount to non-supply of the document.
Gujarat High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shri Nasir Ismail Mujavar vs Commissioner Of Police on 14 September, 2012

Learned advocate Mr. Tripathi relied upon the judgment in the case of Siraj Khan Vs. Himingliana & Ors. 1989, Cri.L.J. 392. By relying upon this judgment, he submitted that fact of securing bail by the detenue constitutes a very important factor while arriving at the decision to decide whether the subjective satisfaction was properly arrived at or not. He submitted that on account of non-consideration of the fact of grant of bail, subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated. He submitted that on this count, the order of U.S.Jagtap 4 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:07:48 ::: 1691-12-WP-judgment=.doc detention is required to be quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - R Y Ganoo - Full Document

Smt. Savithramma.T vs The Commissioner Of Police on 7 April, 2017

7. He also brought to our notice the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of SIRAJ KHAN vs. L.HIMINGLIANA AND OTHERS reported in 1989 Crl.L.J.392 wherein it is held that if the detenue is not supplied with the legible and complete copies of the documents, it comes in the way of his submitting effective representation to the detaining authority.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Hinchigeri - Full Document
1