Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
6 judgments · newest first · showing 1–6
The appellant, a deliveryman, complained that gold bars received in exchange for gold chains were counterfeit, leading the police to freeze the accused's bank accounts. The police reported the seizure to the jurisdictional magistrate only after a delay, and the Madras High Court ordered de‑freezing …
The appellant challenged the forfeiture of his family’s properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) on the ground that the underlying detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities …
The widow of Shrikrishna Gopilal Solanki, who died while detained under COFEPOSA, challenged the forfeiture of her properties under SAFEMA. Solanki had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court contesting his detention order, but the petition was dismissed as infructuous on the basis of an …
The Supreme Court examined whether an officer specially empowered under the COFEPOSA Act or the PIT NDPS Act to make a preventive detention order is required to consider the detainee's representation against that order. It held that the officer who makes the order is the detaining authority and must …
The complainant, Archna Guha, filed a private complaint in 1977 alleging torture by five police officers in 1974. Two of the accused, Santosh De and Ranjit Guha Niyogi, sought discharge under Section 245(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the prosecution had failed to produce all …
The respondent was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, and made a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which was forwarded to the Advisory Board. He also filed a separate representation for revocation of his detention under section 14 of the Act to the Prime Minister. …
