Home / Supreme Court / Diary 120/1955

BHAGUBHAI DULLABHABHAI BHANDARI v. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA& OTHERS(with connected peti

Supreme Court of India | Diary 120/1955

Status

Judgment

Decided On

1956-05-08

Bench

DAS SUDHI RANJAN (CJ),JAGANNADHADAS B.,AIYYAR T.L. VENKATARAMA,SINHA BHUVNESHWAR P.,IMAM SYED JAFFER

Petitioner

BHAGUBHAI DULLABHABHAI BHANDARI

Respondent

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA& OTHERS(with connected peti

Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12

PETITIONER: BHAGUBHAI DULLABHABHAI BHANDARI

Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA& OTHERS(with connected petiti

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/1956

BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) JAGANNADHADAS, B. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA IMAM, SYED JAFFER

CITATION: 1956 AIR 585 1956 SCR 533

ACT: Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act XXII of 1951), s. 56- Constitutional validity-Order of externment-Restrictions- Reasonableness-" Witness", scope of the word in the section- Whether ,not applicable to members of the police force or customs department Constitution of India, Art. 19.

HEADNOTE: Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is not unconstitutional and does not contravene the provisions of Art. 19 of the Constitution. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay ( [1952] S.C.R. 737), followed. In order to attract the operation of the section the Officer concerned should be satisfied that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public, but it is not necessary to show that all the witnesses are unwilling to give evidence. The terms of the section do not justify any restricted meaning being given to the word "witnesses" and it is applicable to members of the police ...

Related

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India