Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Basant Chandra Ghose vs Emperor on 19 January, 1945

In Re: A.K. Gopalan vs Unknown on 19 March, 1951

17. As to motive, what is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to use his own language, is that the order of detention was intended to flout our order on Crl. M. P. No. 153 of 1951. Although the use of the word "flout" in this context was not accepted by the learned Advocate General it could not be disputed by him that the order was intended to render our judgment in Crl. M. P. No. 153 of 1951 of no force and effect whatsoever in relation to the release of the petitioner which would automatically follow on it. The learned Advocate General has given us reiterated assurances that the Government never intended to disrespect our order but' only desired to devise some further method of ensuring the continuance of the detention of the petitioner in the interests of public safety, which would be a legitimate means of getting over the difficulty created by our judgment. If the mode of circumvention of our judgment resorted to by the Government is something substantially justified by the law 1 do not think we can pronounce the order as void at the inception as contended by Mr. Nambiar. The law on the point is perfectly clear. That an order of detention can be passed against a person who is already under detention and that there is nothing inherently illegal about successive orders passed against him on the same grounds, where the sufficiency of the grounds is not examinable by the court has been ruled by the Federal Court in -- 'Basanta Chandra v. Emperor', AIR 3945 F. C. 18.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G. Narayanaswami Naidu And Ors. vs Inspector Of Police And Anr. on 30 July, 1948

138. There is an earlier case decided by the Federal Court reported in Basania Chandra Qhose v. King Emperor, (194) 6 F. C, B. 295 : A.I.R. (31) 1944 P. C. 86 which dealt with " the Restriction and Detention Ordtnance, III of 1944" (Ss. 6 and 10) promulgited by the Governor-General of Icdit. That Ordinance contained, in addition to a provision similar to S 16 of Madras Act I [1] of 1947 and Section 16 (l), Defence of India Act, a further clause stating that no Court shall have power to make any order under s 491, Criminal P. C. in respect of any order made under or having effect under that Ordinance or in respect of any person the subject- matter of Such an order (Vide Clause 10 (l) of the Ordinance). This latter portion resembles very much Section 16-A of the pre. sent impugned Ordinance and therefore the con-struction of Section 10(l) of Ordinance in of 1944 by the Federal Court will be of immense assistance in deciding what exactly are the powers which this Court possesses when Section 16-A of the Ordinance is found intra vires. The principles of law that emerge from this decision are, (i) that it is open to the detenu to show that the order of detention was not in effect made by the autherity empowered to make it, or (2) that it was a fraudulent exercise of the power by the autherity, or, (3) that the detenu was not the person intended to be affected or lastly (4) that the autherity which made the order did not act in good faith. In other words the order must be in proper exercise of the powers conferred by the statute and not in a colourable exercise, nor should the order bothe result of bad faith on the part of the autherity, It should also not be an abuse of the powers conferred under the Act, or for the pur-pose of effecting a fraud on the Act. Consistently with these principles good faith on the part of the order-making autherity is presumed until the contrary is proved and a mere challenge by the detenu is not sufficient to shift the onu3 on the autherity.
Madras High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Basudeva vs Rex on 12 May, 1949

56. Decisions of the Federal Court of India in Keshav Talpade v. Emperor 1944 F. C. B. 57 : A.I.R. (31) 1944 F. C. 24 : 46 Cr. L. J. 336 Emperor v. Keshav Talpade 1944 F. G. B. 69 : A.I.R. (31) 1944 F. C. 22 : 46 Cr. L. J. 312 and Basanta Chandra Ghose v. Emperor 1944 F. C. B. 295 : A.I.R. (31) 1944 F. C. 86 as also in the case of Basanta Chandra Ghosa v. Emperor 1945 F. C. B. 81: A.I.R. (32) 1945 F. C. 18 : 46 Cr. L. J. 559 and the case of Birpal Singh v. Emperor 1946 F. C. B. 21 : A.I.R. (38) 1946 F. C. 2: 47 Cr. L. J. 683, show that no Order with regard to costs was passed in appeals against detention Orders under the Defence of India Rules. The learned Advocate-General has contended that whenever the State claims to detain a citizen and a proceeding results therefrom in the nature of proceeding under Section 491, Criminal P. C., it must be considered to be a proceeding of a criminal nature. Such a proceeding, according to the learned Advocate-General, is very different from cases in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction Cr cases under the Guardian and Wards Act. Lastly the learned Advocate-General has brought to our notice the decision of the Federal Court in case No. 6 of 1948, Rexv. AbdulMajid A.I. R. (86) 1949 P. C. 103 where the Federal Court, while dismissing the appeal, passed no Order as to costs of the appeal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

In Re: Dhruvarajsing Vishwanathsing vs Unknown on 5 May, 1945

Even though the observations of the full bench in Basanta Chandra Ghosh v. Emperor and the speeches of the majority of the Law Lords in Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson as also the observations of Chagla and Gajendragadkar JJ. in Emperor v. Bajirao above referred to, were with reference to Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules and the analogous provisions thereto obtaining in England in reg.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pralhad Krishna Kurane vs The State Of Bombay on 11 June, 1951

Ghose v. Emperor, 47 Roni. L. R, 396, which was a Federal Court case, it was observed by Spena O. J. that if at any time before the Court directed the release of the detenu a valid order directing his detention was produced, the Court could not direct his release merely on the ground that at some prior stage there was no valid cause for detention. The question was not whether the later ordor validated the earlier detention but whether in face of the later valid order the Court could direct the release of the petitioner. Applying these decisions to the facts of the present case we find that even if it be conceded that the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, on 23.2-1931, waa an invalid order, being bad for want of jurisdiction, there was in any event a perfectly valid order under Section 4 of the Act pasied by the appropriate Government on 10-5-1951, and, that being so, it could nob be contended that today there is no proper order in this case under Section 4 of the Act There is a proper order to-day under that Section, and there is also a perfectly good and valid detention order under Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, in our opinion, the detention of the detenu is valid.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Prahalad Panda vs Province Of Orissa on 14 November, 1949

The argument that since the relevant material will normally be within the knowledge and possession of the Government the onus is to be thrown on the Government has been noticed and repelled by the Federal Court in Basanta Chandra v. Emperor, 1945 F. C. R. 81 at p. 87 : (A. I. R. (32) 1946 P. C. is : 46 Cr. L. J. 559). Apart, however, from any question of burden of proof there is in this case, the affidavit of the Additional Home Secretary filed by the Government in Para. 3 of which he has categorically stated that there were confidential reports and information received after the previous order of detention dated 20th April 1949, which were placed before the Hon'ble Minister in charge, when the order dated 20th August 1949 was passed and on which the Hon'ble Minister was satisfied that the detention order was necessary as a preventive measure against the petitioner engaging himself in subversive activities. There is absolutely no reason not to accept the truth of this affidavit. It has been suggested that if such confidential reports were available, their existence would have been mentioned to this Court in the affidavit filed before this Court by the Additional Home Secretary on 22nd August 1949, at the hearing of the prior application Cr. Misc. No. 119/49. It must, however, be pointed out that what we then required was not information as to any material that may have been received subsequent to the order of detention dated 20th April 1949 but reports in between the first order of detention dated 23rd October 1948 and the second order of detention dated 20th April 1949 on which the second detention might have been based. There is, therefore, no scope for any suggestion that the affidavit of the Additional Home Secretary filed in this application is not to be accepted. On the other hand, a perusal of the grounds of detention dated 5th September 1949 which is comprehensive in its details is itself in some measure convincing that the information contained therein was not likely to have been faked up. Indeed if we remember that under the amended Act, the Provincial Government were not at all bound to furnish to the petitioner the grounds of detention, the very fact that they did furnish the grounds to the petitioner is the clearest indication of the bona fides of the order. It must, therefore, be held that there is absolutely no reason for pronouncing the order of detention of the Provincial Government against petitioner Baishnab Chandra Patnaik to be invalid or to direct his release from custody. The petition is accordingly rejected.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next