Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
S.S. Venkataramana Aiyar vs Emperor on 21 September, 1917
However wide the powers conferred by this section may be, the authority of the Magistrates exercising such powers is neither absolute nor supreme but is subject to supervision and revision by the higher Courts and therefore, the Magistrates in order to act legally and with propriety, must, as observed by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in S.S. Venkataramana v. Emperor AIR 1919 Mad 1004 at p. 1007 : 1918-19 Cri LJ 56, indicate with reasonable fullness the materials on which they conclude that there was some emergency justifying their actions, so that the higher Courts may check and brake them and put them back on rails when they go off.
Article 13 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr & ... on 28 October, 1970
11. The material portion of the impugned order has been quoted hereinbefore wherein the alleged forcible entry by the petitioner before me in the room alleged to be in the occupation and possession of the respondent No. 2 was sought to be restrained. Assuming the allegations to be true, there is nothing in the impugned order or anywhere in the record to show that such entry by the petitioner in the room in the possession of the respondent was likely to assume such "grave proportions to bring the matter within the interests of public order" or the general public. The impugned order aiming to affect and restrict the right of the petitioner to move freely as conferred by Sub-clause (d) of Article 19(1), can be sustained only if it was passed in the interest of the general public or of any Scheduled Tribe as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19. In the absence of any such indication, the user of the provisions of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate was improper. The Supreme Court in Babulal Parate's case AIR 1961 SC 884 : 1961 (2) Cri LJ 16 and Madhu Limaye's case AIR 1971 SC 2486 : 1971 Cri LJ 1721 was fully alive to the fact that this Section 144 could be improperly applied by those who are not alive to the provision of the Constitution and observed AIR 1971 SC 2486 at p. 2497 : 1971 Cri LJ 1721 that "Section 144 is not unconstitutional if properly applied". It is, therefore, clear that when improperly applied, what shall be struck down is such improper application and not the provisions of the section.
Article 372 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Babulal Parate vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 January, 1961
11. The material portion of the impugned order has been quoted hereinbefore wherein the alleged forcible entry by the petitioner before me in the room alleged to be in the occupation and possession of the respondent No. 2 was sought to be restrained. Assuming the allegations to be true, there is nothing in the impugned order or anywhere in the record to show that such entry by the petitioner in the room in the possession of the respondent was likely to assume such "grave proportions to bring the matter within the interests of public order" or the general public. The impugned order aiming to affect and restrict the right of the petitioner to move freely as conferred by Sub-clause (d) of Article 19(1), can be sustained only if it was passed in the interest of the general public or of any Scheduled Tribe as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19. In the absence of any such indication, the user of the provisions of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate was improper. The Supreme Court in Babulal Parate's case AIR 1961 SC 884 : 1961 (2) Cri LJ 16 and Madhu Limaye's case AIR 1971 SC 2486 : 1971 Cri LJ 1721 was fully alive to the fact that this Section 144 could be improperly applied by those who are not alive to the provision of the Constitution and observed AIR 1971 SC 2486 at p. 2497 : 1971 Cri LJ 1721 that "Section 144 is not unconstitutional if properly applied". It is, therefore, clear that when improperly applied, what shall be struck down is such improper application and not the provisions of the section.