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

1956 Supreme(Bom) 23

M.C.CHAGLA, Y.V.DIXIT
Bapurao Dhondiba Jagtap – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted in the Court of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate for having contravened an order passed by the Commissioner of Police under Section 37(3), Bombay Police Act, on 12-11-1955, and he has come before us under Article 228 of the Constitution contending that the case before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate involves a substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution and therefore it should be transferred to this Court and this Court should decide that substantial question of law.

2. Section 37(3), Police Act, empowers the Commissioner of Police by an order in writing to prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so long as he considers such prohibition to Be necessary for the preservation of public order. There is a proviso to this sub-section to this effect:

"Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than fifteen days without the sanction of the State Government".

Acting under this sub-section the Commissioner of Police issued an order on 28-9-1955 and by that order he prohibited for a period of fifteen days any procession of five or more persons in Greater Bombay. He exempte




































































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