Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)
Irfan Ahmad Lone vs State Of J&K; & Others on 18 January, 2019 cites

Razia Umar Bakshi vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 June, 1980

He has also not been provided the translated copies of the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation against his order of detention to the appropriate authority. According to the counsel for the petitioner when a person is booked under a substantive offence, he cannot be placed under preventive detention unless there are compelling reasons for doing so and those compelling reasons have to be stated in the order or in the grounds of detention. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the detenu was already in the custody in relation to a criminal case; neither had he HCP no.260/2018 Page 2 of 13 applied for bail nor bail was otherwise granted to him and the detaining authority has not given any justified reason to pass the detention order if he was already in custody in relation to a criminal case. To reinforce his submissions, counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Razia Umar Bakshi v. Union of India and ors 1980 AIR SC 1751; Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. & others; Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu & another, (2011) 5 SCC 244; and Sama Aruna v. State of Telengana AIR 2017 SC 2662.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 117 - S M Ali - Full Document

Surya Prakash Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 9 August, 1994

He has also not been provided the translated copies of the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation against his order of detention to the appropriate authority. According to the counsel for the petitioner when a person is booked under a substantive offence, he cannot be placed under preventive detention unless there are compelling reasons for doing so and those compelling reasons have to be stated in the order or in the grounds of detention. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the detenu was already in the custody in relation to a criminal case; neither had he HCP no.260/2018 Page 2 of 13 applied for bail nor bail was otherwise granted to him and the detaining authority has not given any justified reason to pass the detention order if he was already in custody in relation to a criminal case. To reinforce his submissions, counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Razia Umar Bakshi v. Union of India and ors 1980 AIR SC 1751; Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. & others; Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu & another, (2011) 5 SCC 244; and Sama Aruna v. State of Telengana AIR 2017 SC 2662.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 203 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Haradhan Saha & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 August, 1974

11.The essential concept of the preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of the detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. The Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 198, points out that a criminal conviction, on the other hand, is for an act already done, which can only be possible by a trial and HCP no.260/2018 Page 5 of 13 legal evidence. There is no parallel between the prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case, a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something, which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in the Act, to prevent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 551 - A N Ray - Full Document

Debu Mahato vs The State Of West Bengal on 15 February, 1974

In Debu Mahato v. State of W.B. (1974) 4 SCC 135, it was observed by the Supreme Court that while ordinarily-speaking one act may not be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction, there is no such invariable rule and that in a given case "one act may suffice". That was a case of wagon-breaking and given the nature of the Act, it was held therein that "one act is sufficient".
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

Israil Sk. vs The District Magistrate Of West ... on 26 November, 1974

514. It was a case of theft of railway signal material. Here too "one act was held to be sufficient". Similarly, in Israil SK v. District Magistrate of West Dinajpur (1975) 3 SCC 292 and Dharua Kanu v. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 527, single act of theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fish-plates respectively, was held sufficient to sustain the order of detention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Dharua Kanu vs State Of West Bengal on 14 January, 1975

514. It was a case of theft of railway signal material. Here too "one act was held to be sufficient". Similarly, in Israil SK v. District Magistrate of West Dinajpur (1975) 3 SCC 292 and Dharua Kanu v. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 527, single act of theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fish-plates respectively, was held sufficient to sustain the order of detention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 38 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Mrs Saraswathi Seshagiri vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 26 March, 1982

In Saraswathi Seshagiri v. State of Kerala (1982) 2 SCC 310, a case arising under a single act, viz. attempt to export a huge amount of Indian currency was held sufficient. In short, the principle appears to be thus: "Though ordinarily one act may not be held sufficient to sustain an order of detention, one act may sustain an order of detention if the act is of such a nature as to indicate that it is an organised act or a manifestation of organised activity". The gravity and nature of the act is also relevant. The test is whether the act is such that it gives rise to an inference that the person would continue to indulge in the similar prejudicial activity. That is the reason why the single acts of wagon-breaking, theft of signal material, theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fish-plates, were held sufficient by the Supreme Court. Similarly, where a person tried to export the huge amount of the Indian currency to a foreign country in a planned and premeditated manner, as in the present case the detenu has been HCP no.260/2018 Page 10 of 13 apprehended with two hand grenades, it was held that such single act warrants an inference that he will repeat his activity in future and, therefore, his detention is necessary to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 67 - Full Document

Gautam Jain vs U.O.I.& Anr on 4 January, 2017

17. If one looks at the acts, the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is designed for, is to prevent, they are all these acts that are prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The acts, indulged in by the persons, who act in concert with other persons and quite often such activity has the national level ramifications. These acts are preceded by a good amount of planning and organisation by the set of the people fascinated in tumultuousness. They are not like ordinary law and order crimes. If, however, in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for the detention. On the contrary, it does. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of the grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. The said views and principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gautam Jain vs Union of India anr, AIR 2017 SC 230.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 100 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Kubic Dariusz vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 January, 1990

19. While it is the settled law that the detention order, grounds of detention and documents, referred to and relied on, are to be communicated to the detenu in a language understood by him so that he could make an effective representation against his detention, the question arises as to HCP no.260/2018 Page 11 of 13 whether the courts have necessarily to accept what is stated by the detenu or it is permissible for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to have a reasonable view as to the detenu's knowledge of the language in which the grounds of detention were served. If the detenu's statement is to be accepted as correct under all circumstances it would be incumbent on the part of the detaining authority in each such case to furnish the grounds of detention in the mother tongue of the detenu which may involve some delay or difficulty under peculiar circumstances of a case. On the other hand, if it is permissible to ascertain whether the statement of the detenu in this regard was correct or not, it would involve a subjective determination. It would, of course, always be safer course in such cases to furnish translated script in the detenu's own language. The Supreme Court after saying so in Kubic Dariusz v. Union of India & ors, AIR 1990 SC 605, has viewed that it would be open for the Court to consider the facts and the circumstances of a case, to reasonably ascertain whether the detenu is feigning ignorance of the language or he has such working knowledge as to understand the grounds of detention and the contents of the documents furnished. The Supreme Court has held that the detenu is not required to write an essay or pass any language test. A working knowledge of English enabling him to understand the grounds would be enough for making a representation. He could very well send his representation in the language known to him. In the present case, perusal of the detention record, produced by learned counsel for respondents, reveals that the detenu has put his signatures, both on overleaf of detention order when the detention was executed and on Receipt of grounds of detention, accepting and admitting that he understood the contents of the grounds of detention as the same has been explained to him in the language which he understands, i.e. Kashmiri. Here, one important aspect is to be taken note of that the documents, HCP no.260/2018 Page 12 of 13 except the detention order, the grounds of detention and the communication for making representation to the detaining authority and Government, in the shape of FIRs and other relevant material, are in Urdu language. And insofar as these excepted documents, viz. detention order, grounds of detention and communication, albeit, are in English language, but have been explained to detenu in Kashmiri Language. Besides, the detenu has studied up to Class 12th. This is so stated in the grounds of detention, which fact the petitioner has not disputed in the petition. Thus, it cannot be heard saying that the detenu has no knowledge about the English language. The fact that the detenu has read up to 12th and the grounds of detention have been explained to him in his vernacular, go a long way to show that the right of the detenu to make an effective representation has not been impaired in any manner. Be that as it may, the petition lacks in merit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 80 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 Next