Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the kerala habitual offenders act 1960 1 Page 1 of about 2,728 results (0.181 seconds)

Sukanya Shantha Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... tamil nadu restriction of habitual offenders act, 1948 (previously restriction of habitual offenders act1948); madhya bharat vagrants, habitual offenders and criminals (restrictions and settlement) act, 1952; orissa restriction of habitual offenders act, 1952; uttar pradesh habitual offenders act, 1952; rajasthan habitual offenders act, 1953; jammu and kashmir habitual offenders (control and reform) act, 1956; bombay habitual offenders act, 1959; gujarat habitual offenders act, 1959; kerala habitual offenders act, 1960; karnataka habitual offenders act, 1961; andhra pradesh habitual offenders act, 1962; himachal pradesh habitual offenders act, 1969; goa, daman and diu habitual offenders act, 1976; 136 part xvii particulars of such offenders.300 these acts also oust the jurisdiction of courts to review .....

S.Maharaja Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... from the adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention, it is clear that the detenu is a habitual offender. ..... there was nothing on record for the detaining authority to arrive at his conclusion that the detenu is a habitual offender. ..... the petitioner has challenged the detention order, dated 2.8.2011, passed by the first respondent, stating that the said order has not been passed in accordance with the relevant rules and the procedures prescribed in the tamil nadu prevention of dangerous activities of boot-leggers, drug offenders, forest offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders, sand offenders, slum-grabbers and video pirates act, 1982. ..... the petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the tamil nadu prevention of dangerous activities of boot-leggers, drug offenders, forest offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders, sand offenders, slum-grabbers and video pirates act, 1982 (tamil nadu act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the state government, in g.o. ..... he had relied on the decision of the kerala high court, in r.p.goyal vs. ..... state air 1974 kerala 85(v 61 c 24), in support of his contention. 18. .....

Benson Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2008CriLJ573; 2007(3)KLJ264

..... petitioner in this case is a habitual offender who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment in 31 cases. ..... the case was charge sheeted under section 53(a) of the kerala police act and the allegation was that the petitioner was found with a motor cycle alleged to be stolen. ..... we, therefore, agree with the high court that the period during which the writ petitioners were in preventive detention cannot be set off under section 428 against the term of imprisonment imposed on them.true in anne venkateswara rao's case as well as abdul aziz's case the court was mainly dealing with the detention under the preventive detention act, still the court reiterated the legislative policy that section 428 only provides for a 'set off' and it does not equate an under ..... in najakat's case also majority judgment did not refer to any of the previous decisions of the apex court including that of anne venkateswara rao's case, but expressed the following view;reading section 428 of the code in the above perspective, the words 'of the same case' are not to be understood as suggesting that the set off is allowable only in if the earlier jail life was undergone by him exclusively for the case in which the sentence is imposed. .....

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Mehamud

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2007(9)SC278; 2007(8)SCALE593

..... by the order dated 12th august, 1999 the district magistrate had directed detention of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') under section 3 of the maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers and drug offenders act , 1981 (in short the 'act'). ..... 10 under rule 23.4 (3)(b) is that they are 'persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not'. ..... in order to pass an order of detention under the act against any person the detaining authority must be satisfied that he is a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of section 2 of the act who habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under chapter xvi or chapter xvii of the penal code or any of the offences punishable under chapter v. ..... it, therefore, necessarily follows that in order to bring a person within the expression 'dangerous person' as defined in clause (c) of section the act, there should be positive material to indicate that such person is habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences which are punishable under chapter xvi or chapter xvii of1 or under chapter v. ..... state of kerala : 1981crilj337 this court had an occasion to deal with expressions like 'bad habit', 'habitual', 'desperate', 'dangerous' 'hazardous'. .....

Ayyappankutty Vs. the State

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 1987CriLJ1593

..... other provisions of law like the habitual offenders act and the indian police act etc. ..... though the act does not specify the reasons and objects of taking such measurements or photographs of convicts, habitual offenders or suspects, evidently it is not for ..... similarly section 29(b) of the kerala police act empowers the police officers to take all reasonable measures for ..... the kerala police act ..... have already referred to the provisions of the code of criminal procedure and the kerala police act with reference to the duties of the police in preventing commission of ..... hold that article 19(l)(d) guarantees to a-citizen a right to privacy in his movement as an amanation from that article and is itself a fundamental right, the, question will arise whether regulation 856 is a law imposing reasonable restriction in public interest on the freedom of movement falling within article 19(5); or, even if it be assumed that article 19(5) does not apply in terms, as the right to privacy of movement cannot be absolute, a law imposing reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of state must be upheld as valid.14. ..... union of india air 1960 sc 430 it is reasonable to think that the makers of the constitution considered the word 'restriction' to be sufficiently wide enough to save laws inconsistent with article 19(1), or even taking away the rights conferred by the said article, provided the inconsistency or taking away is reasonable in the interests of the different matters mentioned in .....

Shaik Habeeb Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1992CriLJ2246

..... 25(1a), and 35 of arms act - were of the same date and the third incident of alleged murder by detenu and his associates in broad day light was of the year preceding the foresaid two incidents, although the proximity between the incidents betrays a nature and a tendency of committing these offences it cannot however be denied that they indicate that the detenu was one who habitually committed offences which are at least punishable under i.p.c. ..... referring to the statement of the petitioner that the detenu is only an immature youth and his apprehension that his incarceration in the company of hardened criminals in the central jail offends the guarantees to juvenile offenders under the international charter of human rights and tantamounts to converting him into a criminal, it is stated that the detenu is confined as provided in the a.p. ..... mohan that 'the detaining authority has to enumerate the number of cases or instances for a long period to show that the person who is to be detained is a goonda under the act as a single act cannot be characterised as habitual act. ..... the two grounds urged before the supreme court against the order of detention as in the present case were that just two incidents of prejudicial acts may not justify the satisfaction that the person concerned was habitually indulging in such activities. ..... state of kerala, : air1982sc1165 . .....

V. Muthuvelu Vs. State of A.P. and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... referring to the aforesaid crimes, in the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu, namely, bathini tirumala is a habitual offender affecting public order, falling in the definition of goonda under section 2(g) of the act and his continuous presence as a member of civil society is not desirable. ..... on the other hand, it is contended by the learned special government pleader appearing for respondents that the detenu is a habitual offender indulging in the offences of illicit cutting and transportation of red sanders causing damage to the public property. ..... prevention of dangerous activities of bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land grabbers act, 1986 (act 1 of 1986), (hereinafter referred to as the act'), the 2nd respondent-collector and district magistrate, chittoor has issued the impugned order for detention of one sri bathini tirumala, who is the son of petitioner herein, on the ground that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the public peace, tranquility and social harmony. ..... of kerala and others (2004) 2 scc 621), in powanammal v. .....

State of Gujarat Vs. Natwar Harchandji Thakor

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : 2005CriLJ2957; (2005)1GLR709

..... however, keeping in mind the huge arrears and long time spent in trials and resultant hardships to parties, and particularly, the accused and the victims of the crimes, the benefit of 'plea bargaining' as an alternative method to deal with the dispute or question of offence requires serious consideration, which would not be admissible and available to the habitual offenders. ..... the benefit of 'plea bargaining' would, however, not be admissible to habitual offenders.84. ..... have or are permitted to have access - (1) is drunk and incapable of taking care of himself, or(2) behave in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink, or(3) is found drunk but who is not the holder of permit granted under the provisions of this act or is not eligible to hold a permit under sections 40, 41, 46 or 46a shall, on conviction, be punished - (i) for an offence under clause (1) or clause (3),(a) for a first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month and with fine ..... malimath (formerly, chief justice of the kerala high court), has also endorsed the commission's recommendations, as well as, by review committee on constitutional reforms. .....

Chonari Sulekha, W/O. C. Hamza Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2003(1)KLT374

..... counsel also submitted that the detainingauthority found him as a habitual offender but none of thematerials on which such conclusion was reached by thedetaining authority was made available to the detenu.counsel submitted that detenu made application before theadvisory board for assistance of legal practitioner ornext friend but the same was not considered by theadvisory board and consequently the subsequent orderpassed by the detaining authority was also vitiated.4. ..... in that case apex court was considering theprovisions of the cofeposa act and emphasised thenecessity of adverting to vital documents and held asfollows:'though the courts exercising powers of judicialreview do not consider the challenge to an orderof detention as if on an appeal reappreciating thematerials yet since an order of detention inprison involves the fundamental right of a lifeand liberty, no absolute immunity can be claimedby the respondents as to the decision arrived atand it is open to the courts to see whether therehas been due and proper application of mind andthat all ..... state of kerala (2001(1) klj 684) followed the abovementioned decision and heldthat bail application and the order of bail are all vitaldocuments and the detaining authority is bound to considerthe same. ..... state of kerala (2001 (1) klj 684) and hajara v.state of kerala (1997 (1) klt 597). .....

Ramakanta Das Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1994(II)OLR387

..... in a case of hardened criminals, and habitual offenders, benefit was refused by kerala high court. ..... seriousness of the offences with which the petitioner was found guilty leaves no manner of doubt that ha is a hardened criminal and habitual offender. ..... it is equally well-established that the inherent power is to be exercised to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice and this power has to be exercised sparingly only when the court feels that the ends of justice require it and not as a matter of routine, when the applicants are hardened criminals, the ends of justice do not require that the sentences should be made to run concurrently. ..... unless court directs that such sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence the imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of sentence to which offender has been previously sentenced. ..... if a situation arises for invoking the inherent power of the court under section 432, the court has to see whether the circumstances and the object for which the inherent power is to be exercised are in existence and can be achieved. ..... section 482, of the code is statutory recognition of age-old and well-established principle that even court has inherent power to act ex debito justitine to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of process of court. .....