Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 37 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 61 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rameshwar Shaw vs District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr on 11 September, 1963
23. Applying the above settled principle
to the facts of the present case we have
no doubt that the detention order, in the
present case, must be quashed for this
reason alone. The detention order read
with its annexure indicates the detaining
authority's awareness of the fact of
detenu's jail custody at the time of the
making of the detention order. However,
there is no indication therein that the
detaining authority considered it likely
that the detenu could be released on
bail. In fact, the contents of the order,
particularly, the above quoted para 18
show the satisfaction of the detaining
authority that there was ample material
to prove the detenu's complicity in the
Bank dacoity including sharing of the
booty in spite of absence of his name in
the FIR as one of the dacoits. On these
facts, the order of detention passed in
the present case on 7-9-1988 and its
confirmation by the State Government
on 25-10-1988 is clearly invalid since
the same was made when the detenu was
already in jail custody for the offence of
bank dacoity with no prospect of his
release. It does not satisfy the test
indicated by the Constitution Bench in
Rameshwar Shaw case [AIR 1964 SC
334 : (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (1964) 1 Cri
LJ 257] . We hold the detention order to
be invalid for this reason alone and
express no opinion on merits about the
grounds of detention."
Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain (C) Ahmed ... vs Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr on 19 September, 1989
In
support of his plea, he places reliance on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Amritlal & Ors. v. Union Govt. Through Secy.,
Ministry of Finance and Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 341; Ameena Begum v.
State of Telangana & Ors., (2023) 9 SCC 587; Rameshwar Shaw v.
D.M., Burdwan & Anr., 1963 SCC OnLine SC 33; and,
Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain @Ahmed v. Commissioner of Police,
Ahmedabad and Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 751; and of this Court in
Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu v. Union of India &
Ors., 2024:DHC:6831-DB.
Binod Singh vs District Magistrate Dhanbad Bihar & ... on 26 September, 1986
14. Learned Division Bench of this Court in
Gurminder Singh @ Lalli (supra) in a similar
situation held as under:
N. Meera Rani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 22 August, 1989
13. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in N. Meera
Rani vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and
Another (1989) 4 SCC 418, in respect to the
aforementioned aspect, held as under: