Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.27 seconds)Section 167 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kana vs The State on 24 August, 1979
17. Although the cases Kana v. State 1980 Cri LJ 344 (Rai) (supra) and Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi 1953 Cri LJ 1113 (SC (supra) were cited, before Kudal, J., in Ratiram's case (supra) but it appears that attention was not invited to the relevant, observations made in those cases having bearing on the question with reference to what date the question of legality of detention has to be considered.
Section 309 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Talib Hussain vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 7 July, 1970
We are inclined to take the view on Question No. 2 on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Talib Hussain's case (supra) and hearing would mean final hearing of the petition, so on that basis, in our opinion, the date of the illegality of the detention should be the date when the application for bail is finally heard.
Section 309 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 344 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Basant Chandra Ghose vs Emperor on 19 January, 1945
29. Thus relying on the decision in Saptawna v. State of Assam 1971 Cri LJ 679 (SO (supra): Babu Nandan Mailah v. State 1972 Cri LJ 423 (FB) (Pat) (supra): Basant Chandra Ghose v. Emperor 1945-46 Cri LJ 559 (FC) (supra) and Talib Hussain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), we approve of the view taken by M. B: Sharma.
Saptawna vs The State Of Assam on 5 February, 1971
29. Thus relying on the decision in Saptawna v. State of Assam 1971 Cri LJ 679 (SO (supra): Babu Nandan Mailah v. State 1972 Cri LJ 423 (FB) (Pat) (supra): Basant Chandra Ghose v. Emperor 1945-46 Cri LJ 559 (FC) (supra) and Talib Hussain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), we approve of the view taken by M. B: Sharma.