Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Motilal Jain vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 March, 1968
This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. The State of Bihar Cr. A. No. 183 of 1967 disposed of on 1st December, 1967 and dealt with in the case of Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar.
Ujagar Singh vs The State Of The Punjab on 23 February, 1951
The case of Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab , is actually relevant on the point and the relevant observation may be usefully reproduced here:
Naresh Chandra Ganguli vs The State Of West Bengal And Others(And ... on 20 May, 1959
The contention of Mr. Sinha relying on the decision of Shibhan Lal Saksena, referred to above, can also be answered by saying that on the facts of this case the situation does' not arise; because, I am of opinion that none of the grounds is either vague, irrelevant or non-existent.-See for instance the observations of the Supreme Court in Nuresh Chandra Ganguti's case.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in Preventive Detention Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Shibban Lal Saksena vs The State Of Uttar Pradeshand Others on 3 December, 1953
9. It has then been urged by learned Counsel that if the earlier grounds are included in the grounds for the purpose of the present detention, then if some of the grounds are bad, in spite of the fact that the other grounds are good, his detention would be bad. He has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shibban Lal Saksena v. The State of U.P. . It was laid down in that case that where the Government while confirming the detention admitted that one of the two grounds mentioned in the original order was unsubstantial or non-existent, the other ground, which still remained, was quite sufficient to sustain the order would be to substitute an objective Judicial test for the subjective decision of the executive authority, which was against the legislative policy underlying the statute. In such cases, the position would be the same as if one of these two grounds was irrelevant for the purpose of the Act or was wholly illusory and that would vitiate the detention order as a whole. In my opinion, this case does not support the contention of learned Counsel because it dealt with an entirely different aspect; since the decision proceeds on the principle that where some grounds are found to be non-existing or cancelled or given up, detention could not be justified.
1