Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 7 November, 1978
It is this section which applies to the present cases. The section contemplates satisfaction on the part of the Central Government or the empowered officer of the Central Government in terms mentioned in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9. Such satisfaction was recorded in these cases (in two of these cases, namely Special Criminal Applications 485 and 399 of 1984, this question does not arise as there is no challenge to any declaration in those cases, but we have mentioned in the cause title those two cases also because reference order proceeds as if the question arises in those cases also and reference has been made in that manner) and the question the Division Bench was called upon to consider was whether there was factual basis for recording such satisfaction. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat by the petitioners to contend that the order of detention was based on a past incident so distant in point of time that the requirement of Section 9 was not satisfied in either of these cases. It was contended that this was the approach made in the Supreme Court decision adverted to and therefore it was urged before us that making the same approach the declarations must be found to be bad in these cases. The Judges of the Division Bench were evidently of different views on the subject and the Bench after stating these felt that it would be proper, in view of the importance of the question, to refer the question for decision to a Full Bench. We notice that the question that we are called upon to decide has not been as such stated by the Division Bench in the order of reference. In fact it would appear that the challenge was to the declaration under Section 9(1) and the challenge was made on the basis that when once it was shown that the declaration was based only upon the materials furnished by an incident of an anterior date it would not be possible for the Court to uphold such declaration, for clause (a) refers to satisfaction of the officer that the person "smuggles" and similar is the case with clauses (b) and (c) and it could not be said that a person "smuggles" goods merely because the available materials indicate that he had smuggled goods. In the absence of a question framed or posed by the Division Bench we have necessarily to pose it so that we may furnish the answer. After discussion at the Bar and after going through the order of reference we propose to answer the question which we pose in the following form :
B. Shama Rao vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry on 20 February, 1967
We have only to advert to the observation of the Supreme Court in Shama Rao v. Union Territory, Pondicherry that only the ratio of a decision is binding and not the conclusion. The Court in that case said :
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 8 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Section 2 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Gora vs The State Of West Bengal on 11 December, 1974
Evidently in that case the material available only referred to past activities of 1973 and 1974 and therefore on such material alone the Court felt that in 1977 when the declaration was made the authority concerned could not be satisfied that the detenu 'engages' himself in unlawful activities. The activities of 1973 and 1974 were not activities constituting the proximate or immediate cause for taking up the case for detention. Material evidencing past conduct was relied on by the authority to assume likelihood of prejudicial conduct in the future. The case is dissimilar to the one before us where the very initiation of action was on the basis of activities which were detected and it was not as if for taking up the detention some past conduct was relied on. It was the present context contemporaneous with taking up action that caused initiation of proposal for detention, but that action culminated in a detention order only some time later. Though in the case before the Supreme Court it could not have been said that the detenu engages himself in transporting smuggled goods, in the case before us it could be said that he smuggles, for at the time action was initiated, which action ultimately culminated in the detention order, reference was made to a contemporaneous event, an event which prompted such action to be forthwith taken. Reference here was not to some past conduct of the detenu.
S. Hajee Mohamed Haneef Saheb And Co. vs S.S. Abu Bucker And Ors. on 6 October, 1955
No doubt, grammar is a good guide to meaning but a bad master to dictate. Notwithstanding the traditional view that grammatical construction is the golden rule. Justice Frankfurter used words of practical wisdom when he observed Massachusetts S & Insurance Co. v. U.S. 1956 352 Under Section 128 at p. 138 :
1