1993 (10) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in regard to an offence registered under Sections 143, 147, 353 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution for which was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 4, Nagpur, under CC No. R. 261/92, dated October 23, 1992. The second instance related to an incident which occurred on January 23, 1993 in regard to which an offence was registered under Sections 186, 187, 353, 506(B), 332 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code which was then under investigation. On the basis of these two instances the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, concluded that the conduct of detenu was prejudicial to public order. 2. Immediately after the detention order was passed and the detenu was taken in custody, he made a representation da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the representation. The learned Additional Solicitor General tried to explain this delay by saying that further information was received by the State Government on March 18, 1993. In this connection our attention was drawn by the learned Additional Solicitor General to the counter filed on behalf of the State Government wherein the chronology of events was set out. Nowhere we find in that chronology that the Central Government had sought additional information from the State Government. What appears from the chronology is that the Advisory Board took a decision on March 18, 1993, and that information was conveyed to the Central Government. The Central Government has not filed any counter to state that it was not satisfied with the reply ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e propose to remove this impression once and for all if it persists and to impress upon the Central Government that it is under obligation to file its counter within the time permitted by the Court failing which the case may go by default. Let it be clearly understood that production of the file is not a substitute for a counter to be filed by the Central Government. The Court peruses the file not to absolve the Central Government of its responsibility to file a counter but to satisfy its conscience if it notices ambiguities in the Government's stand. If the Courts have shown indulgence by perusing the file where affidavit is not filed for good reason, let that indulgence not be misused by construing it to be a licence to dispense with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order. 3. In the result this appeal succeeds. The order of detention is quashed. The detenu will be set at liberty at once unless required in any other case. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, to ensure that no such lapse takes place in future. CHANABASAPPA V. HANMANTHA ORDER 1. This appeal by special leave, against the judgment and order dated February II, 1975, of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 2580 of 1974, must succeed for the reasons recorded hereafter. 2. The appellants herein have a decree for possession of the disputed land in their favour. They obtained it after two successive rounds of litigation up till the High Court. When the ....