9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenge to preventive detention order under KAAPA can be done even at pre-execution stage, going by the judgments of the Apex Court. He further argued that out of the four cases enumerated for consideration by the detaining authority, by now, two cases have been quashed by single Judges because the parties had resolved the disputes out of court. The next plea is that on the face of the availability of jurisdiction under S. 15 of KAAPA to keep the second petitioner out of the limits of the district to which he belongs, the more drastic step of a preventive detention measure ought not to have been resorted to. He also points out that after the two criminal cases were quashed, petitioners have filed representation before the State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d materials placed by the petitioners themselves. They show, by themselves, that the detention order cannot be treated as groundless. 3. We have seen Exts. P4 and P5, the two orders passed by this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 'Code', for short, in relation to two of the four criminal cases noted above. The respective learned single Judges noted that the parties have arrived at a settlement and no useful purpose would be served in permitting the prosecution to continue. It was only on that ground that in both cases, the prosecution in the respective cases stood terminated by exercise of power under S. 482 of the Code. In doing so, this Court had never found that the final reports submitted on conclusion of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in cases which really fall under its cover to the satisfaction of the competent authority and which would withstand the test on judicial scrutiny as to statutory sustainability and appropriateness, apart from constitutionality. 6. We may also say that when a prosecution gets terminated by the modes, procedures or processes noted above, that does not go to immediately discharge a person from the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer leading to that prosecution. That finding by the competent police officer, on inquiry or on investigation would still be a material available in the domain of police and executive. Such material would, therefore, be available for the purpose of S. 2(p)(iii) of KAAPA. We say this, more particularl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is mentally ill. It would be unreasonable to keep him out without even providing him medical help, if he needs treatment in that regard. This is all the more so because, if the second petitioner is shown to be one who cannot be tried owing to any disability in that regard, he has to be presented for treatment by the competent authority and could be put to trial only on being satisfied, on due certification by such authority that he is fit for trial. We see no ground to interfere with, on that issue either. The only plea that is left is that the petitioners made a representation to the State Government. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the so-called representation is shown to have been made after the two orders of this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
