Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.98 seconds)K. Satyanarayan Subudhi vs Union Of India, And Others on 20 March, 1991
11. In our view, the ratio of the abovementioned two decisions on which Shri Khan had placed reliance, viz. (i) Sitaram Somani's case (supra) and (ii) Satyanarayan Subudhi's (supra) supports his contention.
Sita Ram Somani vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 11 February, 1986
i) In the case of Sita Ram Somani v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported at A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 1972, the order of detention was passed on 4th June, 1985 and the statement of the detenu appears to have been recorded on 2nd January, 1985 and the retraction was in an application made to the Collector of Customs on 19th January, 1985. The co-accused Omprakash had also been arrested on 1st January, 1985 and had made a statement on 2nd January, 1985 and had retracted from his confessional statement by making an application on 18th January, 1985. These two statements and some other documents were not placed before the detaining authority and the contention was that the above material being very relevant would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other.
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Madan Lal Anand Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 October, 1989
In fairness to Shri Bagwe, we must also mention that he also tried to seek support from the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakashchandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, (supra) as also in the case of Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, (supra), we have already indicated in para 10 above that in para 4 of its judgment in the case of K. Satyanarayan Subudhi v. Union of India and others, (supra), the Supreme Court has distinguished the said two decisions while coming to the conclusion that non-placement of the retraction of the confessional statement before the detaining authority and non-consideration of the same while arriving at his subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention would render the order of detention invalid.
Smt. Meena Jayendra Thakur vs The Union Of India And Others on 20 January, 1995
In our view, the ratio of the above judgment in Smt. Meena Jayendra Thakur's case can have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case for more than one reason. Firstly in the case before us, the detaining authority has placed reliance not only on the statement of the detenu but also on the statement of Smt. Naseema Beevi. The grounds of detention show that extensive reliance has been placed on the said statements recorded on 17th January, 1995. Secondly, both these persons - the detenu and Smt. Naseema Beevi retracted their statements on 10th May, 1995, much before the order of detention was issued on 30th May, 1995.
1