JASBIR SINGH versus LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ANR.

JASBIR SINGH versus LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ANR.

Excluding the date of detention order, service of grounds of detention on 30th March 1994 does not infraction s.3(3); representation to Advisory Board need not be considered by Central Government where Detaining Authority is Lt. Governor and separate representation to Central Government was disposed; no unusual delay in disposal of representation; no evidence to hold Detaining Authority failed to apply its mind.

Parties
Appellant: Jasbir Singh; Respondent: Lt. Governor, Delhi and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Delhi High Court in Crl. W.p. No. 295 of 1995
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Detention Procedure, Representation Rights
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Detention Procedure Representation Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jasbir Singh

Appellant

Lt. Governor, Delhi and Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Delhi High Court in Crl. W.p. No. 295 of 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delayed service of grounds of detention vitiated the detention under s. 3(3) of COFEPOSA
  2. 2 Whether non-consideration by Central Government of representation sent to Advisory Board vitiated detention
  3. 3 Whether alleged delay in consideration and disposal of representation vitiated detention

Ratio Decidendi

Excluding the date of detention order, service of grounds of detention on 30th March 1994 does not infraction s.3(3); representation to Advisory Board need not be considered by Central Government where Detaining Authority is Lt. Governor and separate representation to Central Government was disposed; no unusual delay in disposal of representation; no evidence to hold Detaining Authority failed to apply its mind.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All contentions rejected
  • Appeal fails and is dismissed