MOHAMMAD SALIM KHAN Vs. C C BOSE
LAWS(SC)-1972-4-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
April 25,1972
MOHD.SALIM KHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.BOSE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SAHIB SINGH DUGAL JAGDAV KUMAR GUPTA PETITIONERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED UPON]STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ASHOK DEY [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
K SIVASANKARAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-3-59] [REFERRED TO]SUBHANGI TUKARAM SAWANT VS. R H MENDONCA COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2000-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1995-11-20] [REFERRED]
SURAJ PAL SAHU SURAJ PAL SAHU VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1986-9-44] [CONSIDERED]
MASOOD ALAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1973-1-23] [RELIED UPON]
RAM BALI RAJBHAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1974-12-20] [FOLLOWED]
BHUT NATH METE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1974-2-52] [RELIED ON]
RADHIKA VS. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2022-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR ALIAS MUNNA GIPPY VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-1982-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MOIN ALIAS KABADI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PARBHANI [LAWS(BOM)-1987-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
BACHHRAJI B PITALIYA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SURAT [LAWS(GJH)-1993-11-31] [REFERRED]
S. HALEEMUDDIN RAHAT MALSEY VS. U.P. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1977-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
METHAI LAL GORA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 24 PARGANAS [LAWS(CAL)-1974-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
MILAN BANIK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1974-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAYAN HARIJAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1972-10-26] [RELIED UPON]
BHAGWAN DAS AND NATHMAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1974-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VITHAL RANE VS. R H MENDONCA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHANGI TUKARAM SAWANT VS. R H MENDONCA COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2001-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
LALTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
MARIAPPAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
SASTI ALIAS SATISHCHOWDHARY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1972-5-35] [RELIED UPON]
S GAYATRI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1981-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
THAKURI BAI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1981-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
PUJARLA VENKAIAH1 VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALGONDA [LAWS(APH)-1981-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH ARBAAZ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
DHANPAT SINGH SURANA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1976-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
LACCHI NATHILAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1975-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAB SARKAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
BIRAM CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1974-3-28] [DISTINGUISHED]
NAFEESA VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEWAN VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1982-3-14] [REFERRED]
ANIL DATTU PAWAR VS. HIMANSU ROY [LAWS(BOM)-2005-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
URMILABEN CHAMPAKLAL JAISWAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-1985-10-3] [REFERRED]
MER MALDE KARNA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUNAGADH [LAWS(GJH)-1981-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAMI BHOI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1974-11-6] [REFERRED TO: 1972 CRI LJ 1020]
LACCHI ALIAS LAXMINARAYAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1975-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARILAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1996-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SUBRATI ALIAS MOHAMMAD KARIM VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1972-11-12] [RELIED ON]
GOLAM HUSSAIN ALIAS GAMA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CALCUTTA [LAWS(SC)-1974-3-32] [RELIED ON]
JUDGEMENT
Shelat, J. -
(1.)In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner Mohd. Salim Khan, a detenu under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, being President's Act XIX of 1970, seeks to challenge the legality of the order of detention passed against him and his detention thereunder.
(2.)The impugned order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas on June 18, 1971 under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner was arrested on the same day and has since then been detained in Jail. At the time of his arrest he was served with a copy of the grounds of detention.
(3.)There is no dispute that various steps following the issuance of the said order as envisaged by the Act were taken by the detaining authorities within the time prescribed by and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner had also made a representation which was duly considered by the Government along with the other relevant materials connected with his detention and was rejected. His case was also placed before the Advisory Board as required by the Act with all the relevant materials including the said representation. The Board reported, after considering those materials including his said representation, that in its opinion there was sufficient cause justifying his detention.
(2.)The impugned order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas on June 18, 1971 under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner was arrested on the same day and has since then been detained in Jail. At the time of his arrest he was served with a copy of the grounds of detention.
(3.)There is no dispute that various steps following the issuance of the said order as envisaged by the Act were taken by the detaining authorities within the time prescribed by and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner had also made a representation which was duly considered by the Government along with the other relevant materials connected with his detention and was rejected. His case was also placed before the Advisory Board as required by the Act with all the relevant materials including the said representation. The Board reported, after considering those materials including his said representation, that in its opinion there was sufficient cause justifying his detention.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.