SHAMRAO VISHNU PARULEKAR versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA

SHAMRAO VISHNU PARULEKAR versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA

Failure to send to the State Government, along with the report under section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the very grounds later furnished to the detenu under section 7, does not breach the requirements of the statute, so long as the materials on which the order was made were reported. The requirements and purposes of sections 3(3) and 7 are distinct.

Parties
Petitioner: Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar; Respondent: The District Magistrate, Thana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 September 1956
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Habeas Corpus, Interpretation of Statutes, Procedural Safeguards for Detention
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Habeas Corpus Interpretation of Statutes Procedural Safeguards for Detention

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar

Petitioner

The District Magistrate, Thana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to send to the State Government, along with report under section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the very grounds later furnished to the detenu under section 7 invalidates the detention.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds furnished to the detenu under section 7 are vague.

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to send to the State Government, along with the report under section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the very grounds later furnished to the detenu under section 7, does not breach the requirements of the statute, so long as the materials on which the order was made were reported. The requirements and purposes of sections 3(3) and 7 are distinct.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for writ of habeas corpus are dismissed.