A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA, M. HIDAYATULLAH
Arun Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State Of W. B. – Respondent
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- The petitioner Arun Ghosh has been detained by the District Magistrate Malda under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act. The order was made on June 2, 1969 and he was arrested the following day. The order states that it was made to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order. His representation was rejected by the Advisory Board and also independently by the State Government. We have looked into the case and are satisfied that there was no undue delay at any stage in dealing with the various aspects of his detention as laid down in the Act.
2. It is, however, contended that the grounds which were furnished to him on June 3, 1969 do not bear upon the maintenance of public order or of his acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order. This is the only point urged in support of the petition by the learned counsel. In the affidavit filed in reply the District Magistrate has summarised the grounds as anti-social activities including rioting, assault and undue harassment to respectable young ladies in the public street of Malda town. The details of these activities are to be found in the grounds and may be sum
applied : Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar
referred to : Pushkar Mukherjee and Others v. State of West Bengal
distinguished : Shyamal Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta anil Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.