Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 7 November, 1978

M. Ahamedkutty vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 January, 1990

In Smt. Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1979] 2 SCC 566, the declaring authority who passed an order under section 9(1) had also stated that the detenu "engages" and "is likely to engage" in transporting smuggled goods. To that extent it was observed by this Court that there was no material for coming to the conclusion that the detenu was "engaging" himself in the unlawful activities as the detenu had been under detention. However, in an appro- priate case if the declaring authority came to the conclu- sion taking into account the past activities of the detenu that he was likely to continue to indulge in such activities in future there might be no justification for this Court to interfere. It was quite likely that persons 228 who were systematically involved in smuggling activities could cause reasonable apprehension in the minds of the declaring authority that they were likely to continue their prejudicial activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 164 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Harendra Gangadas Doshi vs Addl. Secy. To The Govt. Of India And Ors. on 5 December, 1984

It is this section which applies to the present cases. The section contemplates satisfaction on the part of the Central Government or the empowered officer of the Central Government in terms mentioned in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9. Such satisfaction was recorded in these cases (in two of these cases, namely Special Criminal Applications 485 and 399 of 1984, this question does not arise as there is no challenge to any declaration in those cases, but we have mentioned in the cause title those two cases also because reference order proceeds as if the question arises in those cases also and reference has been made in that manner) and the question the Division Bench was called upon to consider was whether there was factual basis for recording such satisfaction. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat by the petitioners to contend that the order of detention was based on a past incident so distant in point of time that the requirement of Section 9 was not satisfied in either of these cases. It was contended that this was the approach made in the Supreme Court decision adverted to and therefore it was urged before us that making the same approach the declarations must be found to be bad in these cases. The Judges of the Division Bench were evidently of different views on the subject and the Bench after stating these felt that it would be proper, in view of the importance of the question, to refer the question for decision to a Full Bench. We notice that the question that we are called upon to decide has not been as such stated by the Division Bench in the order of reference. In fact it would appear that the challenge was to the declaration under Section 9(1) and the challenge was made on the basis that when once it was shown that the declaration was based only upon the materials furnished by an incident of an anterior date it would not be possible for the Court to uphold such declaration, for clause (a) refers to satisfaction of the officer that the person "smuggles" and similar is the case with clauses (b) and (c) and it could not be said that a person "smuggles" goods merely because the available materials indicate that he had smuggled goods. In the absence of a question framed or posed by the Division Bench we have necessarily to pose it so that we may furnish the answer. After discussion at the Bar and after going through the order of reference we propose to answer the question which we pose in the following form :
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Shahmir Alias Shahmiria vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 11 January, 1995

In Smt. Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. The State of Gujarat, , the detenu was detained under order dated 22-7-74 under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. The order was cancelled on 9-12-74 and he was released. He was again detained on 4-7-77 in pursuance to the order dated 7-2-77 passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The order was challenged on the ground of delay in passing the order. It was held by the Supreme Court that "the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. The question is whether the past activities of the detenu are such that the detaining authority can reasonably come to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to continue in his unlawful activities."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V G Palshikar - Full Document

Mohammad Ismail vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 December, 1991

See also Gora v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 473 : (1975 Cri LJ 429); Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1974 SC 1336 : (1974 Cri LJ 938); S.K. Serajul v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 1517) : (1975 Cri LJ 1328); Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat AIR 1979 SC 456: (1979 Cri LJ 212); Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 8 at page 13 : (1982 Cri LJ 150 at page 155); Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 682 : (1982 Cri LJ 420); Shivratan Makim v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 610 : (1986 Cri LJ 813); Smt. Aruna Kumari v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 227 : (1988 Cri LJ 411); Rajendra Kumar Natwarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 1255 : (1988 Cri LJ 1775); Yogendra Murari v. State of U.P. AIR 1988 SC 1835 : (1988 Cri LJ 1825), para 6; and T.A. Abdul Rahaman v. State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 225 : (1990 Cri LJ 578).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Farhat Khan vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 29 May, 1997

It was further observed in this authority; "As was held in Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat whether the time lag between the commission of the offence and the detention was enough to snap the reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention would depend upon the facts of each case. The test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical calender test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months and days between the offending act and the order of detention. The question is whether the past activities of the detenue were such that the detaining authority could reasonably come to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to continue in his unlawful activities."
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - B K Sharma - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Gupta vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 9 December, 1992

In Smt. Rekhaben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 456 : (1979 Cri LJ 212), the detenu was detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and release on 19-12-74 on cancellation of the order. He was detained in Ahmadabad by order dated 7-2-1977 under Section 3(i) of COFEPOSA Act. Learned counsel for the detenu had submitted before the Supreme Court that no material was considered by the detaining authority that the order was based on any fresh activity of detenu after his release on 9-12-1974 and till 7-2-1977. All his activities relate to the period of 1973-74. The High Court of Gujarat had observed that it cannot be urged that reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped by the time lag rendering the impugned order of detention as one without genuine satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Supreme Court did not accept this finding of the High Court after examining the facts of the case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mohanlal Jatia vs The Competent Authority Under The ... on 5 March, 1992

In the case of Rekhaben v. State of Gujarat, a declaration was made under Section 9(1). This declaration was set aside by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that in the absence of Section 9(1), the period of detention permissible under section 3 is only one year. As the order under section 9(1) had not been validly made and as the detenu had been in detention for more than one year, his continuance in detention was not sustainable. "Continued detention" in this context, i.e. under the declaration made under section 9, coupled with the altered Section 8 was set aside. This has no application to a detention order made under Section 3(1) and confirmed under section 8.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next