Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1356; 1972CriLJ845; (1974)3SCC50; 1972(4)LC658(SC)
..... on behalf of the respondent state that certain criminal proceedings were started against the petitioner in respect of his aforesaid acts under the penal code, the explosive substances act and the west bengal maintenance of public order act, 1970. the police, however, had to submit a final report as the witnesses to the aforesaid incidents were ..... the board reported on july 9, 1971 that there was sufficient cause for detention. on august 7, 1971, the state government gave confirmation under section 12 of the act to the detention order and continuation of detention thereunder. -thus, the order or decision of confirmation and continuation was made after the expiration of ..... confirm the detention order and order the continuation of detention or may revoke the order and release the person concerned. the words 'may confirm' in sub-section (1) show that the government has the discretion either to confirm or not to confirm and continue the detention depending upon whether the circumstances at that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1495; 1972CriLJ902; (1972)1SCC636; [1972]3SCR348
..... the petitioner was arrested in a police case referred to as naihati g.r.p. case no. 11, dated november 23, 1970 under sections 148, 379 and 307 of the penal code and section 6(3) of the explosive substances act, but that the magistrate, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, released him on bail. that case, according to the petitioner ..... herein and in pursuance of which the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail the next day, recites that it was passed under section 3(1) and (3) of the west bengal (prevention of violent activities) act, president's act 19 of 1970, the ground for which was that the district magistrate, 24 parganas, who passed it, was satisfied that it was necessary .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1256; 1972CriLJ885; (1972)1SCC580; [1972]3SCR379
..... to commit, any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more or any offence under the arms act. 1959 or the explosive substances act, 1908, where the commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public order; or(e) in the case of a person referred to ..... from the house. the above facts would show that the case against the petitioner was covered by clause (d) of sub-section 2 of section 3 of the act. sub-sections 1 and 2 of section 3 of the act read as under:(1) the state government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him ..... in clauses (a) to (f) of section 110 of the crpc, 1898, committing any offence punishable with imprisonment where the commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1150; 1972CriLJ727; (1972)3SCC525
..... us, no copy of the judgment has been brought to our notice. that there was a prosecution for the offences under the drugs act is mentioned by the appellant fin his statement under section 342, criminal p.c to the question that he along with other accused got the drug in question manufactured with culpable negligence for the ..... : 1968crilj1501 that deaths and injuries caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive composition where even friction or percussion could cause an ..... explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans.9. bearing these principles in view, what we have to see is: (1) whether there was a contravention of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1485; 1972CriLJ919; (1972)2SCC264; 1973(5)LC1(SC)
..... a high degree of negligence by allowing or causing to use dangerous and prohibitee compositions and substance which must be held to have been efficient cause of the explosion which caused injuries to a number of persons with the result that as many as 11 persons died. even if we assume that the case of the prosecution ..... by special leave from an order of the patna high court dismissing in limine the revision petition filed against the decision of the courts below convicting the appellant under sections 304a and 279, indian penal code, for which a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment was imposed under the first charge. no separate sentence was imposed under ..... by the purulent matter. the rest of meninges and brain matter were congested.4. the charge which was framed by the trial magistrate was based solely on the act of rash and negligent driving thereby endangering human life and also causing the death of mohd. latif p.w. 2 mohd. haniff on whose statement first information report .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1177; [1972(24)FLR281]; (1972)IILLJ116SC; (1972)3SCC605; [1973]1SCR83; 1972(4)LC873(SC)
..... valuable as it is found in layers which are skillfully removed to give large dimensional slabs. in the first case there is generally blasting with the help of explosives. in the second blasting is avoided as it will cause damage to the layers. the end product in both is used for construction mostly in buildings and roads ..... the operation described above can be appropriately described as stone breaking or stone crushing.4. the object of the minimum wages act, 1948, as is well-known, is to provide minimum rates of wages in certain employments. section 2(g) defines 'scheduled employment' as 'an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch of work ..... , was engaged in the activity of stone breaking and stone crushing, and since respondent no. 1 was in breach of some of the provisions of the minimum wages act, 1948 and the rules made thereunder he adopted proceedings to enforce the provisions in the court of the munsif magistrate, chittapur, respondent no. 3. respondent no. 1 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1566; 1972CriLJ1053; (1972)2SCC524
..... any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order he be detained. this order was made in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the act. the detenu was arrested on june 20, 1971 and the grounds were served on him on that date. the only ground for detention was as ..... help of the police party managed to secure your arrest on the spot with 30 kgs. of stolen rice in a gunny bag and one iron made instrument. by explosion of bombs you and your associates created panic in the station area and in the adjoining locality you cause disturbance of the public order there by.you are hereby ..... , government of west bengal and forwarded through the superintendent of the jail in which you have been detained as early as possible. under section 10 of the west bengal (prevention of violent activities) act 1970 (president's act no. 19 of 1970). your case shall be placed before the advisory board within thirty days from the date of your detention under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1564; 1972CriLJ1051; (1972)3SCC820; 1972(4)LC893(SC)
..... challenged by them. as a result of the throwing of bombs himungshu bhushan dhar sharma of the railway protection force sustained burn injury on his person the above explosion of bombs created panic in the of state on area and in the adjoining locality and as such, there was disturbance of public order.3. the petitioner ..... 1969crilj274 , to which a reference has been made by mr. khanduja, the district magistrate served an order on the appellant on december 15, 1967 under section 3 of the preventive detention act for his detention. the appellant filed a petition in the high court on december 19, 1967 challenging the order of detention on the ground, interalia, that ..... maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the west bengal (prevention of violent activities act, 1970 (president's act no. 19 of 1970, make this order directing that the said shri jagannath das @ jaga be detained. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1497; 1972CriLJ904; (1972)2SCC486; [1973]1SCR224
..... between 10.45 hrs. and 02.15 hrs. bongaon police on receipt of a secret information searched a house at subhaspalli, bongaon and recovered 3 high explosive bombs and some explosive materials from you and your associates possession.according to section 3 of the act, the state government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from ..... the incident of february 12, 1971 clearly bring the case within ambit of clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the act. as regards the second incident of february 23, 1971 we find that the particulars show that three high explosive bombs and explosive materials were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his associates on search of a house. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1650; 1972CriLJ1000; (1972)2SCC526; 1973(5)LC35(SC)
..... create panic and public disorder in the locality. the aforesaid acts of the petitioner and his associates would fall under section 3(2)(d) of the act, namely, committing or instigating any person to commit any offence under the arms act, 1959 or the explosive substance act, 1908 where the commission of such offence disturbed or was ..... of preventive detention, dated june 29, 1971 passed by the district magistrate, 24 parganas under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the west bengal (prevention of violent activities)act, being president act xix of 1970. the said order recites that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a ..... likely to disturb public order. the acts alleged against the petitioner were that .....
Tag this Judgment!