Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Preventive Detention Act, 1950
Debu Mahato vs The State Of West Bengal on 15 February, 1974
In support of the contention reliance was placed on Debu Mahto v. The State of West Bengal. . The sole ground for detention in that case was that on 11th August, 1972, the petitioner with his associates was found removing three bales of empty jute bags after breaking a railway wagon in Naihati railway yard and when challenged by the local Railway Protection Force the petitioner and his associates fled away leaving the booty. A similar contention was raised in that case also as is being raised in the case in hand. this Court accepted the contention on the facts and circumstances of that case but made the following observation-"We must of coarse make it clear that it is not our view that in no case can a single solitary act attributed to a person form the basis for reaching a satisfaction that he might repeat such acts in future and in order to prevent him from doing so, it is necessary to detain him. The nature of the act and the attendant circumstances may in a given case be such as to reasonably justify an inference that the person concerned, if not detained, would be likely to indulge in commission of such acts in future. The order of detention is essentially a precautionary measure and it is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. But whatever it be, it must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his detention."
Section 132 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Hemlata Kantilal Shah vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 30 October, 1981
10. It was next contended for the detenu that detenu could be prosecuted under the Customs Act and as such his preventive detention was uncalled for. The counsel for the detenu in support of his argument strongly relied upon Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. That case instead of supporting the detenu goes against him. this Court dealing with the point held-"Possibility of a prosecution or the absence of it is not an absolute bar to an order of preventive detention; the authority may prosecute the offender for an isolated act or acts of an offence for violation of any criminal law, but if it is satisfied that the offender has a tendency to go on violating such laws, then there will be no bar for the State to detain him under a Preventive Detention Act in order to disable him to repeat such offences. What is required is that the detaining authority is to satisfy the Court that it had in mind the question whether prosecution of the offender was possible and sufficient in the circumstances of the case. In some cases of prosecution it may not be possible to bring home the culprit to book as in case of a professional bully, a murderer or a dacoit, as witnesses do not come forward to de-pose against him out of fear, or in case of international smuggling it may not be possible to collect all necessary evidence without unreasonable delay and expenditure to prove the guilt of the offender beyond reasonable doubt. The past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately be taken into account in making a detention order. It is indeed largely from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a person that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community or his act of violation of foreign exchange regulations and his smuggling activities are likely to have deleterious effect on the national economy."
1