Gujarat Court August 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Bhavna Chandrakant Acharya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1888
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This matter comes up before this Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Honourable Court by its order dated 1-5-1986 passed in Special Criminal ApplicationNo. 93 of 1986. The question referred to this Bench is as follows:Whether, when a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is found to be bad on any ground, the original detention under Section 3(1) unaided by such declaration also falls to the ground and the detenu is required to be released, even though the detenu has not undergone detention for a period of one year which he would be required to undergo in absence of the declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act?2. The short facts of this case for the purpose of appreciating the reference are as follows:The petitioner in the Special Criminal Application is the wife of the detenu by name Chandrakant Ishwarlal Acharya. On 9-10-1985, the Deputy Secretary to th...
Bhavna Chandrakant Acharya Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj90; 1987(11)ECC336; (1987)2GLR685
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. This matter comes up before this Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Honourable Court by its order dated 1-5-1986 passed in Special Criminal Application. No. 93 of 1986. The question referred to this Bench is as follows:'Whether, when a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is found to be bad on any ground, the original detention under Section 3(1) unaided by such declaration also falls to the ground and the detenu is required to be released, even though the detenu has not undergone detention for a period of one year which he would be required to undergo in absence of the declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act?'2. The short facts of this case for the purpose of appreciating the reference are as follows:The petitioner in the Special Criminal Application is the wife of the detenu by name Chandrakant Ishwarlal Acharya. On 9-10-1985, the Deputy Secretary to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›