Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: assam preventive detention act 1980 section 8 grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order Page 1 of about 315 results (0.489 seconds)

Nibaran Bora, Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... your associates named above acted prejudicially by instigating people to put economic blockade through illegal picketing in the oil india pipeline pumping station at narengi, gauhati continuously with effect from 27th december, 1979 till date, thereby affecting normal flow of crude oil to the refineries in bongaigaon and baruani which are necessary for maintenance of supplies essential to the community.these activities of yours referred above constitute prejudicial activities as defined in section 3(1) of the assam preventive detention ordinance, 1980.sd/-district magistrate, kamrup ..... must be observed before an executive authority can be permitted to preventively detain a person and thereby drown his right of personal liberty in the name of public good and social security; the grounds contemplated under article 22(5) mean all the basic facts, and materials which have been taken into account by the detaining authority in making the order of detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based; nothing less then all the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu. ..... gives the necessary basic facts for conclusion of the fact that the petitioner conspired with some others and instigated ppeople to commit the act attributed to him, nor can i accept his contention that facts from which the conclusion was, arrived at by the detaining authority, need not be disclosed to the detenus .....

Puranlal Lakhanpal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1958SC163; 1958CriLJ283; [1958]1SCR460

..... 626-27) : 'it is now settled by a pronouncement of this court that not only it is not necessary for the detaining authority to mention the period of detention when passing the original order under section 3(1) of the preventive detention act, but that the order would be bad and illegal if any period is specified, as it might prejudice the case of the detenu when it goes up for consideration before the advisory board. ..... (5) when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. ..... the same document which communicated the grounds of detention to the appellant also contained the following statement in paragraphs 7 : 'the central government is satisfied that it is against the public interest to disclose to you any facts or particulars as to dates, persons and places and the nature of your activities and the assistance received or otherwise than those which have been already mentioned.' 24. ..... such a privilege having been exercised in the present case, the appellant cannot be heard to say, apart from the question of mala fides, that the grounds did not disclose the necessary facts or particulars, or that in the absence of such facts or particulars, he was not in a position to make an effective representation. .....

Godavari Parulekar Vs. State of Bombay and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1953SC52; 1953CriLJ508; (1953)IMLJ203(SC); [1953]4SCR210

..... section 3(1)(a) of the preventive detention act of 1950 classifies grounds of permissible detention into three categories. ..... every detention order which has been confirmed under section 11 before the commencement of the preventive detention (second amendment) act, 1952, shall, unless a shorter period is specified in the order, continue to remain in force until the 1st day of april, 1953...' 5. ..... but sub-section (2) qualifies this by dividing detentions into two classes; (a) those in which the detention order was confirmed before 30th of september, 1952, and (b) those in which the confirmation was after that date, and it provides that in the former case, unless a shorter period is specified in the order, the detention shall continue either till the 1st of april, 1953, or for twelve months from the date of detention, whichever expires later. ..... the petitioner concedes that no shorter period is specified in her order of detention but contends that as her detention would have expired either on the 31st of march, 1952, or on the 30th of september, 1952, one of those two dates must now be read into the order and when that is done we have an order which specifies a shorter period, therefore section 11-a(2) does not serve to extend her detention. 6. ..... sub-section (1) of section 11-a states that the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been confirmed under section 11 shall be twelve months from the date of detention. .....

Hira Lal Vs. M.V.N. Rao and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1985(1)Crimes936a; ILR1985Delhi335

..... the act creates in the authorities concerned a new jurisdiction to make orders for preventive detention on their subjective satisfaction on grounds of suspicion of commission in future of acts prejudicial to the community in general. ..... if, thereforee, for any reason it is not possible to successfully try and secure the conviction and imprisonment of the persons concerned for their past activities, which amount to an offence, but which are also relevant for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for considering necessary that a detention order under section 3 be made for preventing such persons from acting in prejudicial manner as contemplated by that section, then, the act, would disputably be attracted and a detention order can appropriately be made. ..... the detention order in such a case cannot be challenged on the ground that the person ordered to be detained was liable to be tried for the commission of the offence or offences founded on his conduct, on the basis of which, the detention order has been made or that proceedings under chapter viii, criminal procedure code . ..... two main contentions which were raised in the petition were to the effect that the impugned grounds of detention were state and were liable to be set aside and, furthermore, the machinery of preventive detention could be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances and was not as a substitute for ordinary criming trial and there was no need to invoke the provisions of cofeposa in the present case. .....

Dimbeswar Hazarika Vs. the State

Court : Guwahati

..... the right to have the grounds on which the detention order is made has been guaranteed by the constitution and has been repeated in section 7, preventive detention act, according to which the grounds on which the order is based have to be communicated to the detenu as soon as it may be possible in order to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. ..... the grounds have to be furnished within a reasonable time and if these grounds are not furnished within a reasonable time, there would be a clear contravention of section 7, which would affect the legality of detention; vide murat patwa v. ..... the charge merely states in a nutshell what the evidence discloses against the particular person. ..... , against an order of detention passed by the governor of assam,dated 2-3-50.which is in these terms:government of assam - order by the governor notification, shillong, 2-3 1950.no. c. ..... the assam government has in its possession a letter written by 'a' in these words:'dear comrade, delighted to hear of your success in carrying out the directive of the communist party. ..... majid, secretary to the government of assam.2. .....

Karim Bux and ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1969CriLJ907

..... if on his own accord the detenu makes another representation before the matter is put before the advisory board by government, that representation has of course to be forwarded by government to the advisory board under section 9 of the act, section 9 says that in every case where a detention order has been made under the act, the appropriate government shall within six weeks from the date specified in sub-section (2) place before an advisory board the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order. ..... , that the preventive detention act does not require that the information on the basis of which the order of detention is passed should be disclosed in the order, that the advisory board does not exercise judicial or quasi judicial functions and that there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice or of any notice being riven to the detenu by the board or by the government either before making the reference to the advisory board or after the receipt of the report from the board, that section 12 of the preventive detention act does not require issue of the two notices as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the preventive detention act, is not .....

Gayatri Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2007(95)DRJ236

..... in the enforcement of a law relating to preventive detention like the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 there is apt to be some delay, between the prejudicial activities complained of under section 3(1) of the act and the making of an order of detention. ..... 3 (xxxiv and xxxv) of its counter affidavit is that the main ground for placing the detenu under preventive detention was for acquiring foreign currency illegally from the market, fabrication of cdfs and supporting documents and, thereforee, despite the freezing of the bank accounts of the detenu these activities could be carried on by the detenu in the name of other persons and, thereforee, the contention of the petitioner that freezing of the bank accounts of the detenu would have prevented him from carrying out the prejudicial activities cannot be taken on its face value. ..... in view of the foregoing, i have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that you have been engaging yourself in activities, which have adversely affected the augmentation of the foreign exchange resources of the country. .....

Siddareddi Venkata Rami Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1975CriLJ468

..... section 8 provides that grounds of order of detention should be disclosed to the person affected by the order and requires that such grounds should be communicated to the detained person as soon as may be. ..... individual act can be a ground for detention only if it leads to disturbances of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order and not if it affects merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed.public order embraces more of 'the community than law and order, public order is the even tempo of the life of the (community taking the country! ..... section (3) of the act empowers the central government or the state government to detain a person, if such government is satisfied that 'the detention of the person is necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of india etc. ..... the parliament made the preventive detention act even in 1950. ..... in such a case, the right to make a representation will be nothing but illusory.8.likewise, neither the constitution nor the act empowers the government or any officer authorised by the government to detain a person for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to sin-role law and order. ..... the authority in this behalf is only to detain a (person in order to prevent him in acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. .....

Sahadat Ali Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... this order was passed by the governor of assam in the exercise of powers conferred on him by sub-section (1) of section 3 read with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of the said section and by section 4, preventive detention act, 1950 (act 4 of 1950). 5. ..... 838 that the mere fact that the arrest was originally ordered for a specific offence but it was not followed by prosecution for that offence cannot affect the power of that detaining authority to take preventive action after the interim or final release of the person detained. ..... the learned advocate relies on what he calls undue haste on the part of the government in obtaining the decision of the advisory board for the purposes of confirming the order of detention in proof of thealleged bad faith on the part of the government.it is worthy of note that in the petition underarticle 226, constitution of india and also in thepetition put in on 4th november containing additional grounds the petitioner has not made anygrievance of the fact that he intended to representto the government and that he has been deprivedof this right by any action on the part of thegovernment. ..... the affidavit which has been put in on behalf of the state of assam embodies the statement that the reason which induced the government to drop the prosecution was that it would be against the interest of the state to disclose evidence which would have had to be produced to substantiate the charge. .....

Usha Rani Vs. the District Magistrate and Collector and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1994CriLJ2209

..... the provisions of any enactment belonging to the criminal jurisprudence cannot be telescoped unto the preventive detention acts and the failure of the concerned authorities to adhere strictly to the procedure prescribed in such enactment will not vitiate the orders of detention, if the requirements of the detention acts have been satisfied. ..... quoting the above passages the court said that the fact that the investigating agency did not put the petitioner on a regular trial for want of evidence cannot be a bar to his detention if the detaining authority under the act is satisfied that it is necessary to make the order of preventive detention on the grounds contemplated by the act. 26. ..... the liability of the detenu also to be tried for commission of an offence or to be proceeded against under chapter viii of the code of criminal procedure which deals with prevention of less serious disturbances and requires execution of bonds on the basis of the acts disclosed in the grounds do not in any way as a matter of law affect or impinge upon the full operation of the act. ..... whether in a particular case the grounds are sufficient or not, according to the opinion of any person or body other than the central government or the state government, is ruled out by the wording of the section. ..... in that case, the supreme court was considering the validity of the provisions of the national security ordinance, 1980, which was later enacted as the national security act (65 of 1980). .....