Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Devinderpal Singh vs Govt. Of National Capital Territory Of ... on 14 November, 1995

Sharjeel Imam vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 July, 2020

30. He further stated that Ms. John while relying upon Devinderpal Singh (supra) ignored para 15 of the judgment, which noticing both Sanjay Dutt (supra) and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) clearly held that written notice to the accused is not required and "informing him that the question of extension for completing the period of investigation was being considered would be sufficient notice to the accused." Insofar as reliance on para 16 is concerned, the same is misconceived because in the said case there was no report of the APP. The report of the APP is both a statutory requirement and is one of the four conditions declared by the Supreme Court for a proper exercise of power under section 43D.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - V K Rao - Full Document

Roopesh T.U vs State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2020

5. The learned Counsel places reliance on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also of this Court in support of his arguments. He relies on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others [1984 (4) SCC 602], which was followed in another decisions Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau and BA 4204/2020 5 another [2009 (17) SCC 631] and Sanjay Dutt V. State [1994(5) SCC 410] and Devinderpal Singh v. NCT [1996(1) SCC 44 1996: KHC 1386], in support of his argument regarding the necessity of serving of notice on the accused before granting an extension of the time fixed for completing the investigation and also the importance of application of mind by the Public Prosecutor while seeking an extension of time.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Menon - Full Document

Union Of India Represented By vs Divan Mujipeer @ Divan

In view of the decision in Sanjay Dutt (II) (supra), which was followed in Devinderpal Singh (supra), the right of hearing of the accused at the stage of Page 16 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A. No.80 of 2022 detention does not extend to serving on him a copy of the affidavit filed by the investigating officer and inviting a counter affidavit from him. Therefore, for extending the period of detention, no written notice is necessary nor an elaborate enquiry be held.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Chonghoi Haokip vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2022

15. Moreover, in the case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya (supra), cited by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, reference has been made to the case of Devinderpal Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (1996) 1 SCC 44, reiterating the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) as explained in the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra), to the effect that requirement of report of the Public Page No.# 12/14 Prosecutor was not diluted and that production of accused before Court would constitute sufficient notice to the accused. Thus, in this case in hand, the mandatory requirement of production of the petitioner on 22.07.2022, when the prayer for extension of time to complete investigation was made and order was passed by the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati was not done and therefore, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the mandatory requirement of producing the petitioner before the Court on 22.07.2022, when the impugned order was passed was not complied with and therefore, the petitioner had no notice of the petition no. 2099/2022 dated 22.07.2022. Moreover, along with the said petition dated 22.07.2022, no report of the Public Prosecutor was presented for the consideration of the Court.
Gauhati High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document
1   2 Next