Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 149 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Narayan Singh vs The State Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 1953

P.Pushpavathy vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 27 June, 2013

In two early decisions of this Court, however, namely Naranjan Singh vs. State of Delhi 1953 SCR 652 : AIR 1953 SC 277 a slightly different view was expressed and that view was reiterated by this Court in B.R. Rao vs. State of Orissa AIR 1971 SC 2197, where it was said. "In habeas Corpus, the Court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings.
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Thiruselvam vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

In a writ of habeas corpus, legality or otherwise of the detention has to be determined at the time of return and not at the time of initiation of the proceedings (See Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277 : 1953 Cri LJ 1113). Admittedly, when the matter was being taken up for final disposal, the petitioner has already been released on bail by a competent Court and as such his prayer for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus does not survive for adjudication at all. However, at this stage, I would like to state that the submission, advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the absence of the reason at the time of remand will vitiate the order of remand, is wholly unfounded and this point is no longer res integra.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - S Nagamuthu - Full Document

Jeevakhan And Ors. vs Officer-In-Charge Of 'Q' Branch Of ... on 10 December, 1982

33. Mr. K.V. Sankaran, relying on the decision in In Re Madhu Limaye AIR 1969 SC 1014 : 1969 Cri LJ l440 has contended that as the arrest of Jeevakhan by the police is tainted with an illegality and as he had been kept under police custody for (far?) over the statutory period and as the remand by the Magistrate had also been passed in a patently routine and mechanical manner without applying his mind to all the relevant matters, the detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. It is to be noted that in the case of in re: Madhu Limaye AIR 1969 SC 1014 : 1969 Cri LJ 1440. Madhu Limaye and others were arrested on 6-11-1968 for defying the prohibitory order promulgated under Section 144, Cr. P.C. which offence is a non-cognizable one Admittedly, no first information report was formally registered on that date and the case was registered subsequently on 19-11-1968. in which the date of the occurrence was mentioned on 6-11-1968. It was also stated that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 143, I. P. C (which is cognizable) and under Section 122 of the Railways Act. Meanwhile, the sub-Divisional Magistrate issued show-cause notices on 11-11-1968 to the arrested persons relating to incidents on 5th and 6th Nov. 1968. why action should not be taken against them under Section 188, I.P.C. The Supreme Court, having regard to the facts of that case, examined the question whether there was non-compliance with the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. After referring to Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi the Court observed that in Madhu Limaye's case the return dated 20-11-1968 was filed before the date of the first hearing and after the rule nisi had been issued and that the said return did not contain any information as to when and by whom Madhu Limaye and other arrested persons were informed of the grounds of arrest and that it had not been also contended on behalf of the State that the circumstances were such that the arrested persons must have known the nature of the offences for which they had been arrested. Nor had it been suggested that the show-cause notices, which were issued on 11-11-1968, satisfied the constitutional requirements. Thus, it was on the sole ground of violation of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution, for the reasons stated above, the Court ordered the release of Madhu Limaye and others.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Taju Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 October, 1982

17. Although the cases Kana v. State 1980 Cri LJ 344 (Rai) (supra) and Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi 1953 Cri LJ 1113 (SC (supra) were cited, before Kudal, J., in Ratiram's case (supra) but it appears that attention was not invited to the relevant, observations made in those cases having bearing on the question with reference to what date the question of legality of detention has to be considered.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jeevakan And Ors. vs Officer-In-Charge, Of 'Q' Branch Of ... on 10 December, 1982

33. Mr. K. V. Sankaran, relaying on the decision in In Re Madhu Limaye (AIR 1969 SC 1014) : (1969 Cri LJ 1440) has contended that as the arrest of Jeevakan by the police is tainted with an illegality and as he had been kept under police custody for (far ?) over the statutory period and as the remand by the Magistrate had also been passed in a patently routine and mechanical manner without applying his mind to all the relevant matters, the detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. It is to be noted that in the case of In Re : Madhu Limaye (AIR 1969 SC 1014) : (1969 Cri LJ 1440), Madhu Limaye and others were arrested on 6-11-1968 for defying the prohibitory order promulgated under Section 144, Cr.P.C. which offence is a non-cognizable one Admittedly, no first information report was formally registered on that date and the case was registered subsequently on 19-11-1968, in which the date of the occurrence was mentioned on 6-11-1968. It was also stated that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 143 I.P.C. (which is cognizable and under Section 122 of the Railways Act. Meanwhile the sub-Divisional Magistrate issued show-cause notices on 11-11-1969 to the arrested persons relating to incidents on 5th and 6th November 1968, why action should not be taken against them under Section 188, I.P.C. The Supreme Court, having regard to the facts of that case, examined the question whether there was non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 22(1) of the Constitution. After referring to Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi , the Court observed that in Madhu Limaye's case the return dated 20-11-1968 was filed before the date of the first hearing and after the rule nisi had been issued and that the said return did not contain any information as to when and by whom Madhu Limaye and other arrested persons were informed of the grounds of arrest and that it had not been also contended on behalf of the State that the circumstances were such that the arrested persons must have known the nature of the offences for which they had been arrested. Nor had it been suggested that the show-cause notices which were issued on 11-11-1968. satisfied the constitutional requirements. Thus, it was on the sole ground of violation of article 22(1) of the Constitution for the reasons stated above, the Court ordered the release of Madhu Limaye and others.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Sanjay Mukeshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 July, 2022

In Ram Narayan Singh's case it was laid down that the court must have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return. In the present case the return, dated November 20, 1968, was filed before the date of the first hearing after the rule nisi had been issued. The return, as already observed, does not contain any information as to when and by whom Madhu Limaye and other arrested person were informed of the grounds for their arrest.
Gujarat High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2001

[Emphasis added] In another Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 277, reliance whereupon has also been placed in Sanjay Dutts case, again while considering a petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus, Patanjali Sastri, C.J. as he then was, noticed with approval, the law already laid down in the case of Naranjan Singh (supra) and observed at page 278 thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 324 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Megala vs The State Represented By on 4 July, 2023

Reliance is placed on Serious Fraud Investigation Office ________________ Page.No.77 of 166 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1021 of 2023 vs. Rahul Modi (2019) 5 SCC 26, Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410, Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab (1952) 1 SCC 118, Basanta Chandra Ghose v. King-Emperor 1945 SCC Online FC 3, Talib Hussain v. State of J&K, (1971) 3 SCC 118 at page 121, Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi [AIR 1953 SC 277: 1953 SCR 652. He averred that infirmity in the earlier detention will not invalidate a legal detention at a later stage.
Madras High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next