Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 13 August, 1999
Now, an effective representation can be made against the
order of detention only when copies of the material documents which
were considered and relied upon by the Detaining Authority in
forming his opinion that the detention of Bham Faisal Gulam
Mohammed was necessary, were supplied to him. It is only when he
has looked into those documents, read and understood their contents
that it can be said that the detenu can make an effective
representation to the Detaining Authority, State or Central
Government, as laid down in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution which
provides as under:
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Noor-Ud-Din Ahmad Shah vs State Of J&K And Ors on 17 September, 2019
"I have thoroughly by examined the dossier submitted
by the Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, to District
Magistrate, Anantnag as also the grounds of detention
formulated by the latter for the detention of the detenu
in the present case, and I find the said grounds of
detention are nothing but the verbatim reproduction of
the dossier as forwarded by the Police to the detaining
authority. He has only changed the number of
paragraphs, trying in vain to give it a different shape.
This is in fact a case of non-application of mind on the
detaining authority. Without applying his own mind to
the facts of the case, he has acted as an agent of the
police. It was his legal duty to find out if the allegations
levelled by the police against the detenu in the dossier
were really going to affect the maintenance of public
order, as a result of the activities, allegedly, committed
by him. He had also to find out whether such activities
were going to affect the public order is future also as a
result of which it was necessary to detain the detenu, so
17 WP (Crl) No. 202/2021
as to prevent him from doing so. After all, the preventive
detention envisaged under the Act is in fact only to
prevent a person from acting in any manner which may
be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and
not to punish him for his past penal acts. The learned
District Magistrate appears to have passed the
impugned order ina routine manner being in different
to the import of preventive detention as or detained in
the Act, passing of an order without application of mind
goes to the root of its validity, and in that case, the
question of going into the genuineness or otherwise of
the grounds does not arise. Having found that the
detaining authority has not applied his mind to the facts
of the case while passing the impugned order, it is not
necessary to go to the merits of the grounds of
detention, as mandated by Section 10-A of the Act."
Smt. Shalini Soni Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 24 October, 1980
In Smt. Shalini Soni and others v. Union of India and others,
(1980) 4 SCC 544, the Hon'ble Supreme Court aptly observed that
the accused must have proper opportunity of making an effective
representation and the operative portion of the same is reproduced
as under: -
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State Of Bihar And Others on 7 September, 1965
In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported as 1966 AIR SC 740, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as under: -
Rekha @Lekha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 February, 2018
"7. Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India which
carves out an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution
of India guaranteeing right to liberty, authorizes the
concerned authorities to pass orders in the nature of
preventive detention but while passing such orders,
authority concerned has to be alive to the mandate of
Article 21 protecting personal liberty of a person. Such
power is required to be exercised in a manner, which
does not have the trappings of depriving a person of the
liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India. An
exceptional case has to be carved out justifying
preventive order. Procedural safeguards have to be
observed. A detenue can claim prejudice, if procedural
safeguards are not adhered to. He can claim that his
liberty had been curtailed de hors the law. Law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rekha v. State of
Tamil Nadu and anr. "reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244
fortifies this view."