Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 290 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary Government ... on 12 April, 1985

Payal Garg vs Uoi & Anr. on 30 April, 2013

On the aforesaid aspect our attention was drawn to the following observations in Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 687 "75. ... The same argument was presented in a little different shade, namely, the fact of retraction should have been considered by the detaining authority and the Court does not know that had that been taken into consideration, what conclusion the detaining authority would have arrived at. This contention cannot be accepted. We are not concerned with the sufficiency of the grounds. We are concerned whether there are relevant materials on which a reasonable belief or conviction could have been entertained by the detaining authority on the grounds mentioned in Section 3(1) of the said Act. Whether other grounds should have been taken into consideration or not is not relevant at the stage of the passing of the detention order. This contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. If that is the position then in view of Section 5-A of the Act there was W.P. (Crl.) No. 410/2013 Page 15 of 24 sufficient material to sustain this ground of detention."
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document

Meena Mahendra Vakharia vs K.L. Verma And Ors. on 6 April, 1997

C.R. 272(supra). One of the main challenges to the order of detention made under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA was that copies of certain documents were not legible. While repelling the said challenge, it was observed in para 9 of the Judgment at page 275 of the report that illegibility of the said documents had not materially affected the right of the detenu to make a representation. The description about the document was conveyed to the detenu in other documents and if all the documents were read together, it was clear that the meaning was sufficiently conveyed. Secondly, it was observed that the document was a subsidiary fact in the nature of evidence and it was mentioned to substantiate and support the main basic fact about the transaction in which the detenu had participated.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 6 - S S Parkar - Full Document

Gautam Jain vs U.O.I.& Anr on 4 January, 2017

Placing reliance on decision of this Court in Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commr. and Secy., Govt. of Kerala wherein it has been observed that the ‘grounds’ under Article 22(5) of the Constitution do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material submitted that in the present case the factual material set out in the grounds of detention alone led to the passing of the order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. We are unable to see any force in the above submission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 100 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Uday T. Valia vs Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary To The ... on 4 March, 1992

In the case of Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, the Supreme Court once again considered the concept of "grounds" used in the context of detention under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution and in sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of COFEPOSA Act. The Court observed that the concept of "grounds" must receive an interpretation which will keep it meaningfully in tune with contemporary notions. While the expression "grounds" for that matter includes not only conclusions of fact but also all the basic facts on which those conclusion are founded, they are different from subsidiary facts or further particulars of the basic facts. The Supreme Court in that case was directly concerned with a situation where the confessional statement made by the detenu under S. 108 of the Customs Act was placed before the detaining authority and the detaining authority had taken this statement into consideration. However, the detaining authority had not taken note of the subsequent retraction by the detenu of this statement. The Court said that the confessional statement was not the only fact upon which the detention order was passed. There was evidence before the authorities concerned that 60 gold biscuits of foreign origin, without any explanation of their importation, were found in the possession of the detenu and the detenu was in contact with persons who were buying smuggled goods from him. Even if the confession made under S. 108 of the Customs Act had to be ignored and obliterated, the order of detention could not be challenged. Sabyasachi Mukherji J. (as he then was) therefore, considered the confessional statement made by the detenu himself as a basic fact or a ground which was taken into consideration by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. The Court, however, held that apart from the confessional statement, there were also other grounds on which the order of detention could be sustained and hence the order would not be vitiated even though the confessional statements were to be ignored. For this purpose the Supreme Court has relied upon S. 5A of the COFEPOSA Act, which was introduced by an amendment in 1975. This judgment, therefore, is directly relevant looking to the facts which are at issue before us. In facts, the case before the Supreme Court was a much stronger case for the detenu in the sense that the confession was of the detenu and the retraction, which was by the detenu, was not placed before the detaining authority. In the case before us, however, the confession of the detenu and his retraction of this confession have in fact been placed before the detaining authority. What is not placed before the detaining authority is the retraction of a statement made by a third party, who is neither the detenu nor a co-detenu. Even if this statement is ignored or obliterated, there are many other grounds on which the order of detention can be sustained in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Mohammed Talha Akrami vs Additional Chief Secretary And ... on 22 March, 2017

16. As held by the Apex Court in the case of PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & OTHERS - 1985 (SUPP) SCC 144, particularly in paragraphs 78 to 82 and in the wake of the overwhelming materials gathered in the course of investigation by the authorities in the form of seizure of currency notes and several other incriminating materials, the need to protect the society from social menace by detaining such persons engaged in smuggling and related activities which have adverse effect on the national economy aimed at disrupting the economy has to WPHC.98/2016 16 be kept in mind along with the all important fact that procedural safeguards have to be ensured and the power conferred on the authorities is not casually exercised so that fundamental freedom guaranteed to the citizens is not undermined. Therefore, by adopting such pragmatic and realistic approach, we have carefully considered the entire materials and are of the view that exercise of power by the authorities, in the instant case, has been strictly as per the safeguards provided.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Saroj Mamdani vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors. on 25 September, 1998

26. While considering the judicial pronouncements made by the Apex Court in all the case-laws referred above, it is pertinent for us to refer that the ratio and the decision held by the Apex Court in Prakash Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and Ors. as well as in Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India and Ors. , are held by the Apex Court that they are not applicable to refer to in K. Satyanarayan Subudhi v. Union of India and Ors. , were held not applicable to the identical facts of the instant case as the detention order in that case, was the same to have been based upon only one ground and that in the incident also similar situation prevails. It is for this reason we are fully satisfied to hold in the context of the decision held by the Supreme Court, Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act do not come to the help of the learned Public Prosecutor in the instant case, for the laxity shown by the Sponsoring and Detaining Authority in the instant case. In fact, the one and only ground dwelt by Mr. Maqsood Khan namely that a common place and common consideration of the written representation retracting the earlier one and of the statement sent as early as 3.7.1997 either by the Sponsoring Authority or by the Detaining Authority and consequent non-supplying of the copy of the said vital documents amounting to a glaring deprival would deprive the very constitutional right conferred on every detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which in our considered and esteemed view with great respect to the learned Public Prosecutor, vitiate the order of detention in the instant case. In fact, every endeavour taken by Mrs. Tahilramani, Public Prosecutor to suggrogate the factum alone from the grounds of detention as a possible ground and that non-consideration of the second representation namely retraction dt. 5.7.97 would have no legs to stand for the simple reasoning that in our considered view that has no bearing with each other. On a close perusal, there appears to be only one ground which permitted the Detaining Authority to incarcerate the detenu under the relevant provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. While dealing with the detention, the contradiction of any kind existed between the written representation made subsequently and the earlier one by the factual matrix consequently spelt out in the statement recorded under Section 108 would render no help while dealing with the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority. If the above matrix is viewed, in our considered opinion and meticulous thinking, the non-consideration of the written retraction amounting to representation of the very material facts sent on 3.7.1997 and not considering the same both by the Sponsoring and Detaining Authority in passing the order of detention goes to the root of the matter and it will be clearly violative of the very fundamental right enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is also been noticed that the copies of the same has not been furnished by either of the authorities to the detenu. Therefore, while appreciating the efforts taken by Mrs. Tahilramani, learned Public Prosecutor in persuading us to accept her contentions, for the above reasonings and observations, we are totally unable to persuade us to agree to her contention and that therefore we are of the clear view that this writ petition challenging the impugned order of detention must succeed.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V V Sahai - Full Document

Gautam Jain vs U.O.I.&Amp Anr. on 4 January, 2017

(SCC pp. 633-34, para 11) “11. Mr Dalveer Bhandari relying on Section 5-A of the Act urged that the order of detention should not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely on the ground that some extraneous materials were placed before the detaining authority since those alleged extraneous materials have no bearing on the validity of this impugned order which can be sustained on the material set out in the grounds of detention itself. Placing reliance on decision of this Court in Prakash Chandra Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2014 & Anr. Page 12 of 30 Mehta v. Commr. and Secy., Govt. of Kerala wherein it has been observed that the ‘grounds’ under Article 22(5) of the Constitution do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material submitted that in the present case the factual material set out in the grounds of detention alone led to the passing of the order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. We are unable to see any force in the above submission.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Gautam Jain vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 March, 2014

"26. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand places reliance on VashishtNarainKarwaria v.State of U.P. [(1990) 2 SCC 629 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 372] This Court held: (SCC pp. 633-34, para 11) WP(Crl.) 2060/2013 Page 21 of 30 "11. Mr DalveerBhandari relying on Section 5-A of the Act urged that the order of detention should not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely on the ground that some extraneous materials were placed before the detaining authority since those alleged extraneous materials have no bearing on the validity of this impugned order which can be sustained on the material set out in the grounds of detention itself. Placing reliance on decision of this Court in Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commr. and Secy., Govt. of Kerala [1985 Supp SCC 144 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 332] wherein it has been observed that the „grounds‟ under Article 22(5) of the Constitution do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material submitted that in the present case the factual material set out in the grounds of detention alone led to the passing of the order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. We are unable to see any force in the above submission. What Section 5-A provides is that where there are two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, each activity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is vague, non-existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever, then that will not vitiate the order of detention."
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - S Khanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next