Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (1.93 seconds)
Documents citing Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik vs Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr on 5 May, 1989

S. Prasad Reddy And Ors. vs Collector And District Magistrate And ... on 24 November, 2004

(2) SCC 576), Rashidmiya v. Police Commissioner , and Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police (1989 Supp. (1) SCC 322) cases, but went further to adversely affect the even tempo of the Society by creating a feeling of insecurity among those who were likely to depose against him as also the law enforcement agencies. The fear psychosis created by the detenu in the witnesses was aimed at letting the crime go unpunished which has the potential of the society, and not merely some individual, to suffer. The activities of the detenu, therefore, squarely fall within the deeming provision enacted in the Explanation of Section 2(a) of the Act, and it therefore follows as a logical consequence that the activities of the detenu were not merely prejudicial to the maintenance of 'law and order' but were prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. In that case, the Supreme Court also gave the following test to find out whether the objectionable activities upon which the order of detention was grounded fell under the classification of being prejudicial to 'public order' or belonged to the category of being prejudicial only to 'law and order'.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 119 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sultan Yakub Qureshi vs The Commissioner Of Police on 19 March, 2021

In the case of Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the definition of "dangerous person" under the Gujarat Act, which is parimateria to the definition under the MPDA Act. It was held in the said judgment that for a person to be brought within the aforesaid definition of dangerous person, it must be shown that he has habitually committed or attempts to commit the offences enumerated in the said definition. The said case was concerned with Dusane 8/14 Cri. WP 610.2021.doc the offences registered under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act. Yet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the detenu therein could not be covered under the definition of "dangerous person" because there was nothing to show that he was habitually committing such offences.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - M Pitale - Full Document

Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr. on 29 April, 1992

8. A reference to the decision in Rashidmiya @ Chhave Ahmedmiya Shaikh v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad , goes to show that the Detaining Authority must also be satisfied that the activity of the detenu affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. It was indeed a case of bootlegger who would fall within the definition of a bootlegger under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Hafijuddin Fazluddin Kazi vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr. on 23 April, 1992

The first being Rashidmiya Shaikh v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Anr. . In this decision while considering the provisions contained under Section 2(c) of the PASAA, 1985, with which we are concerned in the present habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court has ruled that a solitary incident would not be sufficient to conclude that the detenu was habitually committing offences or attempting or abetting commission of offences. The Supreme Court has also ruled, in unequivocal terms, that the solitary incident would not be sufficient to characterise the detenu-Rashidmiya, in that case, as a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PASAA, 1985.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Amanullakhan Kudratallakhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 5 April, 1999

8. The cases of Ayub Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan V/s.S.N.Sinha (Supra) and Rashidmiya @ Chhava AhmedmiyaShaikh Vs. Police Commissioner,Ahmedabad (Supra) aredistinguishable on facts. So far as the law isconcerned, in both the cases the Apex Court has laid downthat single offence registered against the detenu is notenough to declare him as dangerous person.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - D C Srivastava - Full Document

Gopal Gangaram Nepali vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 29 March, 1996

That judgment is based again on the case of Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaikh v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad AIR 1989 SC 1703. In that case also, the Supreme Court has observed that the offences registered in the above mentioned four cases against the detenu on the ground that he was dealing in liquor have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order in the absence of any other material that those activities of the detenu have adversely affected the maintenance of public order.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Nirva Khemshanker Vyas vs Commissioner Of Police For City Of ... on 28 June, 1999

In the matter of Hafisuddin Fazluddin Kazi [Supra], this Court has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rasidmiya Shaikh (Supra). The Court held that, `the singular criminal case did not bring the detenu within the meaning of `dangerous person' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act.' The Court also referred to the statements made by the witnesses before the sponsoring authority. The Court found that the allegations made in the said statements were too general and broad and could not have been relied upon for reaching the subjective satisfaction. The specific incident narrated by the witness did not disclose the dates and the time of the respective incidents.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next