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

1950 Supreme(All) 264

SANKAR SARAN, HARISH CHANDRA
RAM ADHAR MISRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Jagdish Sahay, Kanhaiyalal Mishra

HARISH CHANDRA, J.

( 1 ) IN these criminal Miscellaneous cases the point that arises is whether an order of detention passed under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV [4] of 1950) which does not specify the periods of detention is valid. In the case of M. M. Bashir v. State, 1950 A. L. J. 518: (A. I. R. (38) 1951 ALL. 357) a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that such an order was not legally valid. He has based his finding on the analogy of the sections of the Penal code which prescribe punishments for various offences. It is pointed out that although in all these sections only the maximum periods of imprisonment to which the offender may be sentenced are specified, still Courts while convicting offenders under these sections pass sentences of imprisonment upon them for definite terms. In these sections the words generally used are to the effect that the offender "shall be punished with imprisonment. . . . which may extend to. . . . " These words, in my view, indicate that the sentence of imprisonment must be for a definite term which in no case is to exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for that particular offence. There are provisions i






















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