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

G.B.PATTANAIK, UMESH C.BANERJEE
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Saleem – Respondent


Order

Leave granted.

An order of detention passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act by the Detaining Authority has been set aside by the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court is of the view that in the solitary commission even of a heinous offence a person cannot be detained under the National Security Act. The High Court is clearly in error in coming to the aforesaid conclusion inasmuch as a single instance in given circumstances may disturb the entire public order and, therefore, a Detaining Authority may be justified in arriv­ing at his subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu is necessary in the public interest. The High Court also has completely gone wrong in entering into the mind of the Detaining Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by him and coming to a conclusion that in the case in hand it cannot be said that there was a disturbance of public order. The learned Judges of the High Court on an in-depth examination of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and several other particulars, erroneously exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the detention under the Nati

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