Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.56 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
State Of Tamil Nadu vs P.K. Shamsudeen on 21 July, 1992
In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.K. Shamsuddin, 1992 (4) JT 179 : (AIR 1992 SC 1937) the detention order dated 8-3-88 was challenged by filing a writ petition in Calcutta High Court after nearly 13 months on 5-4-89 wherein an order was passed staying the arrest of the petitioner. The stay order was vacated on 12-4-91 and after nearly three months, another writ petition was filed in Madras High Court which was allowed and the detention order was quashed.
Sk. Serajul vs State Of West Bengal on 9 September, 1974
7. The contention that if a long period has elapsed between the offending activity and passing of a detention order the same would be for a wrong purpose is, in our opinion, wholly fallacicus. The effect of delay in passing a detention order was considered by Bhagwati, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Sheikh Serajul v. State of West Bengal, 1975(11) SCC78:(AIR1975SC 1517) and itwas held as follows :
Nizamuddin vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974
In Sheikh Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353 : (1975 Cri LJ 12) there was no satisfactory explanation for delay in arresting the detenu. The habeas corpus petition was allowed with the observation that it could not be held that the District Magistrate applied his mind and arrived at a real and genuine satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner. Thus where there is delay in passing the detention order it is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which gets vitiated rendering the detention order invalid. The delay cannot lead to the inference that the detention order has been passed for a wrong purpose.
Yogendra Murari vs State Of U.P on 8 August, 1988
In Yogendra Morari v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 1835 : (1988 Cri LJ 1825), it was held as follows at page 1837 (of AIR) :
Smt. Aruna Kumari vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 November, 1987
Similar view has been taken in K. Aruna Kumari v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 227 : (1988 Cri L J 411). A conspectus of the authorities cited above would show that if there is a delay in passing the detention order and the same has not been satisfactorily explained, it will vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority rendering the detention order in valid but the delay alone cannot lead to the inference that the order has been passed for a wrong purpose. The submission that the impugned detention order has been passed for a wrong purpose being based solely upon the alleged delay in passing thereof, has thus no merit and is liable to be rejected.