https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189760 Detention under the Act was upheld because the detenu's conduct was found to affect public order, not merely law and order: the alleged acts of driving at police officers, threats to kill, injury to a pedestrian, damage to another vehicle, and intimidation of witnesses showed a wider impact on community life and public safety. The proviso to Section 3(2) was also held not to limit the detention period itself; it restricts only the initial delegation of detention power, while the maximum duration is governed by the later confirmation and detention provisions. The detention order was therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:25:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189760 Detention under the Act was upheld because the detenu's conduct was found to affect public order, not merely law and order: the alleged acts of driving at police officers, threats to kill, injury to a pedestrian, damage to another vehicle, and intimidation of witnesses showed a wider impact on community life and public safety. The proviso to Section 3(2) was also held not to limit the detention period itself; it restricts only the initial delegation of detention power, while the maximum duration is governed by the later confirmation and detention provisions. The detention order was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189760