Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.39 seconds)Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Rekha @Lekha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 February, 2018
25. Rekha vs. State of T.N - 2011 (2) SCC
(Cri) 596.
Section 10 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Kamarunnissa Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 September, 1990
"From the catena of decisions
referred to above it seems clear to
us that even in the case of a person
in custody a detention order can
validly be passed (1) if the authority
passing, the order is aware of the fact
that he is actually in custody; (2) if he
has reason to believe on the basis of
reliable material placed before him (a)
that there is a real possibility of his
being released on bail, and (b) that on
being so released he would in all
probability indulge in prejudicial
activity and (3) if it is felt essential to
detain him to prevent him from so
doing. If the authority passes an order
after recording his satisfaction in this
behalf, such an order cannot be struck
down on the ground that the proper
course for the authority was to oppose
the bail and if bail is granted
notwithstanding such opposition, to
question it before a higher Court."
N. Meera Rani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 22 August, 1989
Following the above principles, another
Bench of three Judges of this Court in
N.Meera Rani v. Government of T.N.18
(1989) 4 SCC 418, after reviewing the
various other decisions, it was observed
that: "A review of the above decisions
reaffirms the position which was settled by
the decision of a Constitution Bench in
Rameshwar Shaw case and that "none of
39 WP(HC) No.26/2018
the observations made in any subsequent
case can be construed at variance with the
principle indicated in Rameshwar Shaw
case...." Having so observed the Bench
summarised the principle thus: (SCC
p.434, para 22)
"Subsisting custody of the
detenu by itself does not
invalidate an order of his
preventive detention and the
decision must depend on the
facts of the particular case;