Smt. Sattamma Vs K. Rajaiah and Others

Supreme Court of India 29 Jun 1987 C.R.P. No. 692 of 2009 (1987) 2 Crimes 902 : (1987) 3 JT 10 : (1987) 2 SCALE 10 : (1987) 3 SCC 447 : (1988) 1 ShimLC 125 : (1987) 2 UJ 480
Bench: Full Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

C.R.P. No. 692 of 2009

Hon'ble Bench

R. S. Pathak, C.J; V. Khalid, J; Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred

National Security Act, 1980 — Section 12, 13

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. In these appeals by special leave the appellant is aggrieved by the detention of her husband, Kotha Das, under the National Security Act, 1980,

and prays for his release.

3. Kotha Das was arrested on 16 February, 1986. On 17 February, 1986 an order of detention in respect of him was made under Sub-section

(3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City directing that Kotha Das be detained under

Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. It appears that after the case was referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board the Advisory

Board reported that there was sufficient cause for the detention, and the State Government thereafter made an order on 11 April, 1986 directing

the detention of the detenue for one year from the date of the detention order. Two successive writ petitions were filed by the appellant in the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the detention of the detenue. A number of contentions have been raised before us in the attempt to show that

the High Court his committed an error in rejecting the writ petitions. At the out-set we may note that according to Section 13 of the National

Security Act 1980 the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of the detention order which has been confirmed u/s

12 of the Act is twelve months from the date of detention. The period of twelve months has expired. In the circumstances these appeals have

become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Sans Convict Consent
Oct
30
2025

Story

Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Sans Convict Consent
Read More
Supreme Court Raps Insurers for Technical Appeals in Claims
Oct
30
2025

Story

Supreme Court Raps Insurers for Technical Appeals in Claims
Read More