Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 3 in The National Security Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & ... vs Union Of India And Others on 9 February, 1990
14. Now on careful consideration of the decision referred to above, we are of the view that the facts of the case referred to in para 21 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. In the case at hand no bail application had been rejected by the trying Magistrate nor any bail application was pending before the Magistrate, on the other hand the mandatory period was coming to an end. From our past experience such cases are released after mandatory periods are over under Section 167 of the Cr. P.C. It is also from our experience that such investigation would take long time and would not be completed within the mandatory period as in the most of the cases it would be difficult to collect evidence and in such cases the accused are always released on bail by the trying Magistrate after the mandatory periods are over and investigations are not completed. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 15-7-95 and remanded to the judicial custody on 25-7-95. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Manipur Amendment) Bill, 1982 (Bill No. I of 1982). By the aforesaid amendment Sub-section (2) of Section 167 has been amended and for the words "sixty days" has been substituted by the words "one hundred twenty days" and the words "ninety days" has been substituted by the words "one hundred eighty days". As already said from our experience, the investigation of such cases are never completed within mandatory period and in such event the accused are always released on bail. The detaining authority on being seized with such situation has passed an order of detention in anticipation of his being released on bail. Therefore, it cannot be said that the detention order has been passed without application of mind. In this connection, we may also usefully refer to para 4 of the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detaining authority formed its opinion. Para 4 runs as follows:
Kamarunnissa Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 September, 1990
In Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1640 : (1991 Cri LJ 2058), it has been held in para 13 of the judgment as under :
Abdu Salam @ Thiyyan S/O Thiyyan ... vs Union Of India And Others on 17 April, 1990
See Abdul Salam alias Thiyyan v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1446 : (1990 Cri LJ 1502).
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 April, 1995
This submission, in our opinion misconceived because in the case of Kamleshkumar (supra), the Apex court was considering the validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act and NDPS Act and the representation thereof. Unlike in COFEPOSA and NDPS Act, in the case of detention under National Security Act, a specific provision has been made in Section 8(1) of the Act that a representation against the order of detention must be made to the appropriate Government. Therefore, the arguments that such representation can also be made to the detaining authority is not well founded.