Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.29 seconds)Section 3 in The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 7 November, 1968
17.In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10; where the distinction between `law and order' and `public order' has been clearly laid down. Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 14-15)
"Does the expression `public order' take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof. It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad City ... on 16 December, 1988
In the case of Piyush Kanti Lal Mehta vs. Commissioner of Police, 1989 Supp.
Subhash & Another vs State Of U.P on 6 May, 1976
16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash vs. State of U.P. and another, 1998 All.L.J. 2092 (Paras-8, 9, 11,13 and 14) answered the question as to whether an FIR can be registered under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 on the basis of a single case and the meaning of the word "indulge" used in Section 2(b) of the Act and held as under:
Ritesh Kumar Alias Rikki vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2021
In a recent judgment in the case of Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki (supra), a Division Bench of this court held that lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case is valid and permissible under the Act, 1986. Therefore, we have no difficulty to hold that a first information report may be lodged on the basis of a single case, provided the ingredients of the definition of ''Gang' under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1986 is prima facie satisfied.