Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr. on 29 April, 1992 cites

Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik vs Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr on 5 May, 1989

8. A reference to the decision in Rashidmiya @ Chhave Ahmedmiya Shaikh v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad , goes to show that the Detaining Authority must also be satisfied that the activity of the detenu affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. It was indeed a case of bootlegger who would fall within the definition of a bootlegger under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 33 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan vs Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr on 27 July, 1989

6. The contentions raised by Miss Kachhavah therefore are required to be examined in the background of the above said settled legal position. As indicated above, the first contention raised by Miss Kachhavah is that while recording the subjective satisfaction in respect of the preventive detention of the petitioner four criminal cases which were pending investigation at the relevant time, could not have been taken into consideration. Incidentally it requires to be appreciated that the petitioner-detenu was arrested on September 23, 1991, after the registration of the above said offences at Bapunagar Police Station and was subsequently bailed out on September 26, 1991. It also requires to be incidentally noticed that the above said four cases have resulted into acquittal by the orders pronounced by the Competent Criminal Court on 9-12-1991. Indeed the above said aspect of the case regarding, the acquittal of the petitioner-detenu, in the above said four cases is wholly immaterial for the purpose of recording of the subjective satisfaction. Any how the contention raised by Miss Kachhavah, that the Criminal Cases registered against the petitioner-detenu which were pending investigation could not have been taken into consideration, must be accepted Without any hesitation whatsoever. Miss Kachhavah, in support of her contention has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Anr., reported in 1990 (2) GLH 137. In this decision, as the facts would show, there were as many as seven criminal cases registered against the petitioner-detenu during the relevant period. Any how the Supreme Court has pointed out that merely on consideration of the three criminal cases which were under investigation and were yet to be decided the Detaining Authority could not have come to the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was a 'dangerous person' who habitually indulges in committing offences referred to in Section 2(c) of the Act. This decision of the Supreme Court, clearly supports the contention which is being raised by Miss Kachhavah for the petitioner before us. On the basis of the above said principle laid down by the Supreme Court, it shall have to be accepted that the Detaining Authority could not have utilised the registration of the above said four criminal cases against the petitioner-detenu because at the relevant time they were all under investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 87 - B C Ray - Full Document

Mrs. T. Devaki vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 7 March, 1990

In case of Mrs. T. Devaki (supra) there was an allegation of the panic amongst the people in the Hall and residing in the vicinity. It was also stated that the psople had scared and had run helter skaiter. It was also alleged that there was obstruction to the traffic on the nearby road and the incident had created alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the persons present in the Hall and outside. Despite the above said chanting of selective phrases in the statements, the Supreme Court has said very clearly that it cannot be said that the above said activities had a reach and potentiality to affect and disturb the normal life of the community in the locality. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that it cannot be accepted that the above said activity had disturbed general peace and tranquillity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 136 - K N Singh - Full Document

Subhash Bhandari & Anr. Etc vs District Magistrate, Lucknow & Ors on 3 November, 1987

13. After reproducing the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above said six decisions and after considering the same, the Supreme Court has said that from the above said law laid down by the Supreme Court, it follows that it is the degree and the extent of the reach of the objectionable activity upon the society, which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of "Law and Order" or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to "Public Order". The Supreme Court has also pointed out that the facts of each case shall have to be carefully scrutinised to test the validity of an order of detention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 28 - B C Ray - Full Document

Smt. Victoria Fernandes vs Lalmal Sawma And Others on 20 January, 1992

Incidentally it may be pointed out that the same view has been expressed in one more Supreme Court decision in case of Smt. Victoria Fornandes v. Lalmal Sawma and Ors. . It is with this back ground of an up date legal position that we are expected to proceed to examine the statements recorded by the sponsoring authority and employed as the material by the detaining authority to structure the so called subjective satisfaction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 31 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next