Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)
Taju Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 October, 1982 cites

Kana vs The State on 24 August, 1979

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 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ram Narayan Singh vs The State Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 1953

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 123 - M P Sastri - Full Document

Babu Nandan Mallah vs The State on 10 August, 1971

14. We may refer to a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Babu Nandan Mallah v. State 1972 Cri LJ 423. Three separate judgments have been rendered in this case. Justice Akbar Hussain has agreed with the view taken by Justice N. L. Untwalia. as he then was. That was a case under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. In that case the accused was arrested on July 11, 1970 in connection with a case under Section 395. I.P.C. Eventually, cognizance was taken on Nov. 23. 1970. on submission of the charge-sheet by the police. Before submission of the charge-sheet, he moved an application for bail in the High Court, which was rejected on August 20, 1970. The Sub-divisional Magistrate after taking cognizance transferred the case -to the file of Munsif-Magistrate, 1st Class. Hazaribagh. The petitioner's case was that during the period July 11. 1970 to Nov. 23, 1970 he was physically produced in court only on two dates and not on others and on some dates the Sub-divisional Magistrate did not record any specific order of remand. His further case was that on December 21. 1970 the Munsif-Magistrate Shri Ghosh was on casual leave and Shri Ramayan Singh, was in charge of the files of his court and he adiourned the case to January 23. 1971 for evidence without any specific order of remand and an implied order "accused as before" was for a period more than 15 days in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 344 of the Code, His Lordship Untwalia J. considered the question as to whether the accused is entitled to a direction of release by grant of writ of habeas corpus, in the absence of order of remand and it was also considered that whether an order of remand exceeding 15 days is bad and whether the person so detained is entitled to be released by grant of writ of habeas corpus? In that case this question was also considered as to which is the relevant date with reference to which the question of illegality of detention is to be examined.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 14 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Kedar Nath Bajoria And Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal on 23 April, 1954

Farrukhabad U.P. 1976 All LJ 62 : Kedar v. State 1977 Cri LJ 12301 (All) and Rhinvdan v. State of Rajasthan 1975 Cri LJ 1984 (Rai) (supra). In our opinion, these cases have no application. In these cases it has been considered that the words "if in custody" occurring under Section 309(2) would mean legal custody. The question of remand under Section 309 would arise only after taking cognizance of offence or commencement of a trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors on 5 February, 1974

In Katiu Sanyal v. Dist. Magistrate. Darieelina their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in a petition for habeas corpus writ, the earliest, date with reference to which the legality of the detention is to be considered is the date of filing the petition for such writ. Therefore any defect in the leality of the detention of the petitioner prior to the date of filing the petition cannot affect the detention if it is legal on the date of the petition. These observations have been made while examining the Question of legality of the detention on the date of the petition and the question has not been considered on the basis that valid and lawful order of detention had been passed after the date of the petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 19 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next