Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1253 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Darpan Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 20 January, 2003

Sandip Omprakash Gupta vs State Of Gujarat on 11 June, 2003

It is reiterated that the Apex Court has clearly held that even if solitary incident is really disturbing the public peace or tempo of the public and having prejudicial effect in the society, and on such occasion, if ordinary law is not helpful to curb such activities of any person, then certainly, the detaining authority is justified in passing the detention order. But the situation is not such, the detaining authority should not exercise the powers under the detention law. But in the instant case, this aspect has not been taken into account by the detaining authority while passing the detention order against the petitioner. Therefore, considering entire facts, especially the fact that only one registered offence recorded against the present petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act and two unregistered offence disclosed by the secret witnesses against the petitioner which, admittedly not taken note of by the police authority and also considering the taste laid down by the Apex Court in above referred two cases in A KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS and DARPAN KR.SHARMA v. STATE OF T.N. wherein the detaining authority had considered registered offence against the detenu by the detaining authority, in my opinion, the question is whether a solitary incident can be considered and further, the registered offence can be considered or such basis also includes unregistered offence also. But at this stage, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to dwell into this aspect considering the fact that it is not disputed by the learned AGP Mr.Rawal that the father of the detenu against whom also the order of detention was passed being the co-detenu in a very offence for same charges, has been quashed and set aside by this Court while passing the order in Special Civil Application No.587 / 2003 only on the ground considering solitary incident and therefore, according to my opinion, the order of detention is vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 49 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Dhandapani vs The Commissioner Of Police on 23 September, 2004

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the detenu was involved in seven previous cases of theft, they are only cases simpliciter under Section 379, I.P.C., and that the charge of robbery was available only in the ground case and that as such, there was no breach of public order. We find ourselves unable to accept the said contention which is raised by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2003 (1) CTC 382). The ratio of that judgment has to be applied only to the facts of that case and it cannot be held that the Supreme Court had, as a question of law, held that notwithstanding the detenu's involvement in any number of cases of theft in public places, chain snatching, pick-pocketing in public places, etc., there is no involvement of public order. The factual background of the charges of the three past cases of theft and their proximity are not detailed in the judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court has observed that there was no material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of a single instance of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community. Such observation is made apparently only in the context of the facts relating to that case.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - P K Misra - Full Document

Dhandapani vs The Commissioner Of Police And The ... on 23 September, 2004

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the detenu was involved in seven previous cases of theft, they are only cases simpliciter under Section 379, I.P.C., and that the charge of robbery was available only in the ground case and that as such, there was no breach of public order. We find ourselves unable to accept the said contention which is raised by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU . The ratio of that judgment has to be applied only to the facts of that case and it cannot be held that the Supreme Court had, as a question of law, held that notwithstanding the detenu's involvement in any number of cases of theft in public places, chain snatching, pick-pocketing in public places, etc., there is no involvement of public order. The factual background of the charges of the three past cases of theft and their proximity are not detailed in the judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court has observed that there was no material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of a single instance of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community. Such observation is made apparently only in the context of the facts relating to that case.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next