Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt ... vs Home Secretary And Ors on 23 February, 2012
"the language of Section 144 is somewhat different. The test laid down
in the Section is not merely 'likelihood' or 'tendency'. The section says
that the magistrate must be satisfied that immediate prevention of particular
acts is necessary to counteract danger to public safety etc. The power
conferred by the section is exercisable not only where present danger exists
but is exercisable also when there is an apprehension of danger."
State Of Karnataka And Anr vs Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia on 31 March, 2004
The Supreme
Court in State of Karnataka v. Dr.Praveen Bhai Thogadia, 2004 (4) SCC 684,
held that the Court was not acting as an appellate authority over the
decision of the official concerned and unless the order is patently illegal,
without jurisdiction or with ulterior motives and on extraneous consideration
of political victimization by those in power, normally interference should be
the exception and not the Rule. The Court cannot in such matters substitute
its view for that of the competent authority. The basic requirements for
passing an order under Section 144 were held to be as follows:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 134 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Madras vs V.G. Row.Union Of India & State ... on 31 March, 1952
"65(26). The questions before the Court, thus, are whether the
restriction imposed was reasonable and whether the purported purpose of the
same squarely fell within the relevant clauses discussed above. The
legislative determination of what restriction to impose on a freedom is final
and conclusive, as it is not open to judicial review. The judgments of this
Court have been consistent in taking the view that it is difficult to define
or explain the word "reasonable" with any precision. It will always be
dependent on the facts of a given case with reference to the law which has
been enacted to create a restriction on the right. It is neither possible nor
advisable to state any abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness
as applicable uniformly to all cases. This Court in the case of State of
Madras v. V.G. Row [AIR 1952 SC 196] held :