Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.48 seconds)
Megala vs The State Represented By on 4 July, 2023 cites

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022

(e) There is no question of compliance of Section 41 or 41-A of Cr.P.C., as P.M.L.A is a complete code and it contains specific provisions in respect of arrest in the form of Section 19. Section 19 authorises the power of arrest only to higher officials with greater responsibility and also prescribes a specific procedure of intimating about the same to the adjudicating authority and thus, provides enhanced safeguards and a different procedure in respect of arrest and to the said extent, the provisions of arrest in the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to P.M.L.A. This position has been specifically laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case (cited supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 580 - Cited by 293 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952

“ 4. These two grounds relate exclusively to the legality of the initial detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Darjeeling. We think it unnecessary to decide them. It is now ________________ Page.No.122 of 170 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1021 of 2023 well settled that the earliest date with reference to which the legality of detention challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding may be examined is the date on which the application for habeas corpus is made to the Court. This Court speaking through Wanchoo, J., (as he then was) said in A.K. Gopalan v. Government of India: [AIR 1966 SC 816 : (1966) 2 SCR 427 : 1966 Cri LJ 602] “It is well settled that in dealing with the petition for habeas corpus the Court is to see whether the detention on the date on which the application is made to the Court is legal, if nothing more has intervened between the date of the application and the date of the hearing.” In two early decisions of this Court, however, namely, Naranjan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) 1 SCC 118 : AIR 1952 SC 106 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 91 - M P Sastri - Full Document

Budh Singh And Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 May, 2006

53. It is argued before this Court that even though this Court that this Court should look into the strength of the bench and since Budh Singh Vs. State of Punjab’s case (cited supra) is a three Member Bench and when two views are available, this Court should follow Budh Singh Vs. State of Punjab’s case (cited supra), being the larger bench. That may be true in a ________________ Page.No.163 of 170 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1021 of 2023 situation where two views are taken in two different Judgments. But, in this case, when specifically the said judgment has been referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and view has been taken that under exceptional circumstance, the rule of first 15 days is dispensable then, as on date, this Court has to take the legal position as such.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 79 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Directorate Of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan on 31 January, 1994

In support of his contention that the Enforcement Directorate has power to take custody and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 167 etc., to be applicable, the learned Solicitor General of India placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan and Anr.2 more specifically relying upon the paragraph Nos.134 and 136. The 1 (2019) 9 SCC 24 2 (1994) 3 SCC 440 ________________ Page.No.114 of 170 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1021 of 2023 Learned Solicitor General of India also circulated certain Orders of the High Courts, excluding the period in which accused could not be available for grant of custody in the first 15 days.
Supreme Court of India Cites 135 - Cited by 448 - S R Pandian - Full Document

P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019

48. Further, the learned Solicitor General of India also relied upon P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement’s case (cited supra) and several other orders, whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the various other fora have, as a matter of fact, granted custody to the Enforcement Directorate. Merely because the express provision to act as Station House Officer is absent, the same will not in any manner disentitle the Enforcement Directorate from asking for the custody. Therefore, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the respondents officers are entitled to ask for custody.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 2721 - R Banumathi - Full Document

B. Sundar Rao And Ors. vs State Of Orissa on 29 November, 1971

“in habeas corpus proceedings the Court has to consider the legality of the detention on the date of the hearing.” Of these three views taken by the Court at different times, the second appears to be more in consonance with the law and practice in England and may be taken as having received the largest measure of approval in India, though the third view also cannot be discarded as incorrect, because an inquiry whether the detention is legal or not at the date of hearing of the application for habeas corpus would be quite relevant, for the simple reason that if on that date the detention is legal, the Court cannot order release of the person detained by issuing a writ of habeas corpus. But, for the purpose of the present case, it is immaterial which of these three views is accepted as correct, for it is clear that, whichever be the correct view, the earliest date with reference to which the legality of detention may be examined is the date of filing of the application for habeas corpus and the Court is not, to quote the words of Mr Justice Dua in B.R. Rao v. State of Orissa, “concerned with a date prior to ________________ Page.No.124 of 170 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1021 of 2023 the initiation of the proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus”. Now the writ petition in the present case was filed on January 6, 1973 and on that date the petitioner was in detention in the Central Jail, Vizakhapatnam. The initial detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Darjeeling had come to an end long before the date of the filing of the writ petition. It is, therefore, unnecessary to examine the legality or otherwise of the detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Darjeeling. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Vizakhapatnam is legal or not. Even if we assume that grounds A and B are well founded and there was infirmity in the detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Darjeeling, that cannot invalidate the subsequent detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Vizakhapatnam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 57 - D G Palekar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next