Skip to content


Smt. Jesu Dasan and ors. Vs. State and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1966CriLJ831
AppellantSmt. Jesu Dasan and ors.
RespondentState and ors.
Excerpt:
- indian electricity act,2003[c.a.no.36/2003] -- section 67(3): [n.k. patil, j] compensation entire sugar can crop grown including coconut trees were burnt on account of electric cables passing over land of petitioner petitioner however, entered into agreement and received compensation in terms thereof held, it is not open for petitioner to seek relief contrary to undertaking given by him. plea raised by petitioner in anxiety to get more compensation that his signatures were obtained forcibly on agreement is not inspiring confidence of court and is not tenable......ascertain whether the review enjoined by sub-rule (8) of rule 30a has or has not been made.2. the orders of detention in these cases were made by the deputy commissioner, bellary, on october 8, 1964. the argument placed before us by mr. ramachandra rao was that, under sub-rule (8) of rule 30a a review was imperative before the expiry of six months from the date of the order of detention. that period of six months having expired, according to mr. ramachandra rao, on april 8, 1965, he contended that the detenues can no longer be continued in detention.3. mr. advocate general mentions to us to-day that there has till now been no review of the orders of detention under sub-rule (8) of rule 30a of the defence of india rules.4. mr. advocate general did not contend before-us that the interval.....
Judgment:

A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.

1. In these applications made under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction that the detenues shall be set at liberty, it was mentioned to us on Monday by Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Advocate for the detenues, that there has been no review by the authority which was under a duty to make a review-within a period of six months from the date of the-Order of detention, as enjoined by Sub-rule (8) of Rule 30A of the Defence of India Rules. Since this question arose for the first time, when Mr. Ramachandra Rao made that submission, Mr. Advocate; General asked for postponement of the proceedings till to-day to enable him to ascertain whether the review enjoined by Sub-rule (8) of Rule 30A has or has not been made.

2. The Orders of detention in these cases were made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, on October 8, 1964. The argument placed before us by Mr. Ramachandra Rao was that, under Sub-rule (8) of Rule 30A a review was imperative before the expiry of six months from the date of the Order of detention. That period of six months having expired, according to Mr. Ramachandra Rao, on April 8, 1965, he contended that the detenues can no longer be continued in detention.

3. Mr. Advocate General mentions to us to-day that there has till now been no review of the Orders of detention under Sub-rule (8) of Rule 30A of the defence of India Rules.

4. Mr. Advocate General did not contend before-us that the interval of six months specified in Sub-rule (8) of Rule 30A does not commence from the date of the Orders of detention but commences from some other date which as the date on which the detenues were indeed arrested or the date on which there was a confirmation of the Orders of detention by the Government under the provisions of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 30A.

5. In our opinion Mr. Advocate General is right in not maintaining any such argument before us, It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court tin W.P. No. 85 of 1964, Balmukund v. District Magistrate Delhi : 1965CriLJ4 that the interval of six months to which Sub-rule (8) of rule 30A refers is an interval which commences from the date on which the Order of detention was made under Sub-rule (4). That being so, and since there has been no obedience to the provisions of Sub-rule (8) by reasons of there being no review of the Orders of detention within an interval of six months referred to in that sub-rule, the continuance in detention of the detenues on whose behalf these applications have been made to us is illegal and they are entitled to be set at liberty. We make an Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //