Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 2 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Anita Antony vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2022
8. The next contention of the learned counsel is that in view of the
initiation of proceedings under Section 107, there was no need to
initiate proceedings under the KAAP Act. The records reveal that the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannarkad had moved the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam requesting for initiation of
proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr. P.C., and on its basis M.C
No. 50/2024 has been initiated against the detenu. The detenu got
involved in the last prejudicial act on 7.3.2024. The order reveals that
the detaining authority was aware of the pendency of the proceedings
under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. As held in Anita Antony v. State of
Kerala and Others3, the relative scope of the two proceedings is
different and independent. Proceedings under S.107, Cr. P.C, is in the
nature of security for keeping peace and public tranquility, and the
free movement of such a person is not curtailed at all. 107
proceedings is not an embargo to the initiation of proceedings under
the KAAP Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985
10. This Court does not sit in appeal in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India over the decisions taken by the detaining
authority on the basis of the materials placed before the detaining
authority as to whether preventive detention is necessary or
warranted. The short area of jurisdiction is to ascertain whether
subjective satisfaction is entertained properly on the basis of materials
placed before the detaining authority. If the entertainment of the
latter subjective satisfaction is vitiated by mala fides or by total
absence of materials or by reference to and reliance on materials
which cannot legally be taken note of, certainly the powers of judicial
review vested in this Court can be invoked and the order of detention
on the basis of such alleged subjective satisfaction can be set aside.
But, certainly, if there are materials, it is not open to this Court to sit
in appeal over the subjective satisfaction entertained by the detaining
authority. (See: Ibrahim Bachu Bafan and Another v. State of
Gujarat and Another4).
Section 10 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Sapna P.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 7 April, 2016
On a close reading of the
definitions of 'anti-social activity', 'goonda', 'known goonda', 'rowdy'
and 'known rowdy', it is clear that a person who satisfies the
definition of 'rowdy' can also become a 'goonda' provided he indulges
in any anti-social activity or promotes or abets any illegal activity
which is harmful to the maintenance of public order directly or
indirectly. If a 'rowdy' as defined in S.2(t) indulges in any such
activity, he becomes a 'goonda'. If such a 'goonda' is involved in two
such instances, he becomes a 'known goonda'. There is no difficulty in
properly interpreting in what cases a 'rowdy' as defined in S.2(t)
becomes a 'goonda' and a 'known goonda' (See: Sapna P.P. v.
State of Kerala2). In that view of the matter, we reject the first
2
[2016 (3) KHC 149]
2024:KER:69236
W.P (Crl.) No. 891 of 2024 :9:
contention of the detenu and hold that the classification of the detenu
as a 'known goonda' cannot be faulted and the objective satisfaction
arrived at by the detaining authority is in order.
1