TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit Petition No. 287 of 1971 - - - Dated:- 1-2-1972 - J.M. SHELAT AND HANS RAJ KHANNA, JJ. For the Petitioner: N. N. Goswami For the Respondent: D. N. Mukherjee, Sukumar Basu and G. S. Chatterjee JUDGMENT: Shelat, J. The petitioner was arrested and detained on, February 5, 1971 in pursuance of an order of detention passed on that very day by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under sec. 3(1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities), Act, President s Act 19 of 1970. There is no dispute that, as required by the Act, his case was referred to the Advisory Board and on receipt of its report that there was sufficient cause for his detention, the State Government under sec. 12 of the Act made an order or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J., relying on Williams v. Burgess() 10 L.J. Q.B.10) and Hardy v. Ryle (9 B C 603) held that a complaint under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, filed on June 30, in respect of an act alleged to have been committed on May 30, was "within one calendar month after the cause of such complaint shall arise". He held so on the principle that the day on which the cause for the complaint arose had to be excluded while computing the period within which under the Act the complaint had to be filed. In Williams v. Burgess, (3) the statute directed warrants of attorney to be filed "within twenty one days after their execution", and it was held that a warrant cuted on the 9th day of the month would be regarded as having been filed in proper t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the cover note to commence at midnight of that day, and also in Marren v. Dawson Bentley Co. Ltd.,( [1961] 2Q.B. 135.) a case for compensation for injuries received in the course of employment, where for purposes of computing the period of limitation the date of the accident, being the date of the cause of action, was excluded. [see also Stewart v. Chanman([1951] 2 K.B. 792) and In re North, Ex parte Hasluck([1895] 2 Q.B. 264)]. Thus, as a general rule the effect of defining a period from such a day until such a day within which an act is to be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last day. (see Halsbury s Laws of England, (3rd ed.) vol. 37, pp. 92 and 95) There is no reason why the aforesaid rule of construction foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
