Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Puneet vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 January, 1999 cites

Ram Prasad Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 16 January, 1986

7. The Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Chaudhary (supra) has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, 1985 SCC (Cri) 514, wherein it was observed that if the incident, which is the basis of detention, has ended in acquittal, then that incident cannot be available to be used as a basis of detention. In our view, the position that emerges is that it is permissible to pass an order of detention even after acquittal of the detenu in the criminal trial, provided there is subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the prosecution has failed because of awe of the accused persons or due to tampering with the evidence by them or in the circumstances where the detaining authorities are satisfied that nobody dared to come forward to depose against such accused persons. In the present case, there is no such ground or satisfaction of the detaining authority that the criminal prosecution failed due to awe of or tampering with the evidence by the detenu and it could not be there, since at the time of passing of the detention order, the order of acquittal was not there. In the present case, merely on the basis of the fact that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case as a result of which the trial ended in acquittal, it is inferred or presumed that there was awe of the accused persons or there was tampering with the evidence and this is read in the order of detention which was already in operation, in our view, this will amount to adding a ground in the detention order for detaining the detenu. We are also of the firm view that it is not permissible as by doing so, a detenu would be deprived of an opportunity to explain through representation or otherwise that there was no tampering with the evidence on his part nor criminal trial ended in acquittal because of his influencing the witnesses or winning over them by terror. The fact that if detention of a detenu is necessary even after the acquittal of the accused, all such reasons have to be stated in the grounds which, in this case, is neither permissible nor can be added. The result is that the sole ground on which the petitioner was detained has become non-existent, hence it is a case where there exists no ground nor any material in support thereof. As observed earlier, there is no material for the inference that there was any tampering with the evidence on the part of the accused persons by overawing witnesses by reason of which witnesses did not support the prosecution case or they were won over by the accused forcibly which necessitate continued detention.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration & Ors on 5 May, 1982

4. Learned State Counsel has. however, submitted that acquittal in trial does not mean that one cannot be detained on that ground. It is submitted that the scope of two spheres is different, namely, criminal trial is meant for the purposes of punishment for a crime and the object of the order of preventive detention Is to prevent repetition of similar incidents by the detenu. It is further submitted that for the purpose of preventive detention, there should be subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities and they are the sole judges of the same. Thus, once an order of detention was passed and there is subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the order of detention is rendered invalid due to subsequent order of acquittal passed in the Sessions Trial. He has placed reliance upon two decisions ; one in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and others, A.I.R 1982 SC 143, our attention has particularly been drawn to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the decision. The concluding part of paragraph 14, upon which much stress has been laid by the State Counsel is reproduced as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 256 - A P Sen - Full Document

Shiv Ratan Makim S/O Nandlal Makim vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 December, 1985

6. There is yet another decision which has been in Shri Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 610, and our attention has been pointedly drawn to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the decision. The observations are to the effect ; this argument completely overlooks the fact that the object of making an order of detention is preventive while the object of a criminal prosecution is punitive. Even if a crimtnal prosecution fails and an order of detention is then made, it would not invalidate the order of detention....."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 55 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ramesh Yadav vs District Magistrate, Etah And Ors. on 13 September, 1985

7. The Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Chaudhary (supra) has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, 1985 SCC (Cri) 514, wherein it was observed that if the incident, which is the basis of detention, has ended in acquittal, then that incident cannot be available to be used as a basis of detention. In our view, the position that emerges is that it is permissible to pass an order of detention even after acquittal of the detenu in the criminal trial, provided there is subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the prosecution has failed because of awe of the accused persons or due to tampering with the evidence by them or in the circumstances where the detaining authorities are satisfied that nobody dared to come forward to depose against such accused persons. In the present case, there is no such ground or satisfaction of the detaining authority that the criminal prosecution failed due to awe of or tampering with the evidence by the detenu and it could not be there, since at the time of passing of the detention order, the order of acquittal was not there. In the present case, merely on the basis of the fact that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case as a result of which the trial ended in acquittal, it is inferred or presumed that there was awe of the accused persons or there was tampering with the evidence and this is read in the order of detention which was already in operation, in our view, this will amount to adding a ground in the detention order for detaining the detenu. We are also of the firm view that it is not permissible as by doing so, a detenu would be deprived of an opportunity to explain through representation or otherwise that there was no tampering with the evidence on his part nor criminal trial ended in acquittal because of his influencing the witnesses or winning over them by terror. The fact that if detention of a detenu is necessary even after the acquittal of the accused, all such reasons have to be stated in the grounds which, in this case, is neither permissible nor can be added. The result is that the sole ground on which the petitioner was detained has become non-existent, hence it is a case where there exists no ground nor any material in support thereof. As observed earlier, there is no material for the inference that there was any tampering with the evidence on the part of the accused persons by overawing witnesses by reason of which witnesses did not support the prosecution case or they were won over by the accused forcibly which necessitate continued detention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 312 - R B Misra - Full Document
1