Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Dhananjoy Das vs District Magistrate & Anr on 16 August, 1982
21. The same position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Dhananjoy Das v. District Magistrate (1982 Cri LJ 1779)(supra).
The National Security Act, 1980
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kanchanlal Maneklal Chokshi vs The State Of Gujarat And Ors on 23 July, 1979
In that context the Supreme Court Court took note of what was stated in the counter-affidavit in that case whether it was stated by the detaining authority that it was aware that the detenu was being prosecuted under the ordinary law; but it was satisfied that the prosecution under the ordinary law was not sufficient for preventing the detenu from indulging in similar activities in future and observed that this statement of the detaining authority satisfied the rule laid down by it in Kanchanlal v. State of Gujarat .
Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration & Ors on 5 May, 1982
In Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration the Supreme Court observed that it is not merely the incident but the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community and which had the effect of deterring peaceful citizens from going about their normal avocations that is the test for determining whether it is a mere breach of law and order or a disturbance of public order and tranquillity. Justice Sen speaking for the court held that (para 13) :
Mohammad Yousuf Rather vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 10 August, 1979
No doubt in Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (accused 1979 SC 1925) Chinnappa Reddy, J., in striking down the order of detention observed :
Parimal Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 May, 1972
15. Parimal Sarkar v. State of West Bengal is yet another case where the detenu and others looted rice from the wagon at a railway station yard and attacked the Railway Protection Force party with bombs and ballasts when challenged by them. It was held that the acts of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that his detention was valid. This was also a case of a single incident which was held to be sufficient indication of the disturbance of public order.
Arun Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal on 2 December, 1959
It is quite clear from the above that it was not merely a disturbance of law and order but the very public order and tranquillity were rudely shaken. The people lost confidence that they could go about their avocations without the fear of being subjected to similar attacks. That single incident had such far-reaching effect as to requisition extra three platoons of the Andhra Pradesh Special Armed Police force to restore confidence in the public. Mr. Abdul Khair Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that a single incident could not be held sufficient to hold that public order and tranquillity was disturbed or was likely to be disturbed; it could at the most amount to a case of disturbance of law and order not justifying the order of detention, and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal . Hidayatullah, C.J. as he then was, speaking for the court observed that :