Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.52 seconds)Section 8 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 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
Suresh Bhojraj Chelani vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1982
In the decision in Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1983 SC 181: (1983 Cri LJ 342) (supra), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider as to whether the order of confirmation passed by the Government without mentioning the period of detention is vitiated or not. The Supreme Court, after coming to the conclusion, which we have extracted in paragraph 9 (supra) said that the language of section 8(f) merely states that on receiving the Advisory Board's opinion as regards sufficiency of cause for the detention, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and it does not support the contention of the counsel to the effect that the order of confirmation passed by the Government should mention the period of detention. Thus, when especially no period need be mentioned in the order confirming detention, the order passed for continued detention must be taken as order passed both for detention and continued detention.
Section 5 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981
In the context of the notification under section A href="javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','56106','1');">9(1) which entitles the appropriate Government to continue detention of the detenu for a maximum period of two years as compared to the normal period of one year as laid down by section 10 of the Act. it must be held that the opinion of the Advisory Board about the continued detention would include opinion about the Sufficiency of cause for (i) detention of lie detenu on the date of detention: (ii) determination of the detenu on the date of the report: and (iii) extended detention of the detenu for a period of more than one year and up to the maximum period of two years. The first two obligations flow from the employment of the word detention as found in the unmodified form of section 8(f) while the last obligation flows from the employment of the additional word 'continued' on account of the modification projected in section 8(f) via sections A href="javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','56106','1');">9(1) and 9(2) of the Act. Consequently, whenever the Advisory Board submits its report containing opinion on the sufficiency of the cause for continued detention of the concerned detenu, the opinion encompasses in its sweep all the aforesaid three requirements of the opinion. In short, such an opinion is a comprehensive and combined opinion covering all the aforesaid three aspects. It is not possible to agree with the contention of Mr. Karmali for the petitioner that whenever the Advisory Board sends report about its opinion regarding sufficiency of cause for continued detention of the detenu as enjoined by section 8(f) read with section 9(2), it would be an opinion only confined to the question regarding continued detention for more than one year and would not include in its sweep its opinion for detention of the detenu on the date of its report.