SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(AP) 518

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, G.BIKSHAPATHY, G.YETHIRAJULU
S. Jayamma – Appellant
Versus
Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddapah – Respondent


G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THE matter arises out of A. P. Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986 ).

( 2 ) THE Division Bench, on a doubt expressed by the learned Advocate-General regarding the correctness of the principle laid down in M. Ashok Goud v. Collector, 2002 (5) ALT 72, referred the matter for full Bench. In fact, the issue involved is:"can the detaining authority refer past events of the detenu for the purpose of ascertaining the propensity of the detenu of his involvement while passing the detention order?"

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for detenu however submits that while passing the orders of detention, the detaining authority has to form subjective satisfaction on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the detention order and he is not expected to take into consideration stale and non- proximate grounds for reaching such satisfaction while issuing the orders of detention. While, it is the case of the learned Advocate-General that it is always open for the detaining authority to refer to the past events for assessing the propensity of the detenu, if the chain of















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top