- ticket title
- Call for Papers: Lex Revolution: Vol III, ISSUE 4: Deadline: 31st October, 2017.
- Conference: GNLU International Conference On Banking and Finance: 17-18 March, 2018
- Call for Papers: Jamia Millia Islamia’s Seminar on Socio Legal Aspects of Disability in India [Nov 1 – 2, Delhi]: Register by Oct 29
- Law Mantra Journal (ISSN: 2321-6417) Call for papers for Vol. 5 Issue 1,2; Submit before 30th September,2017
- 1st Yuveshna Essay Competition on Women and Law: Register by Oct 1
One of detenu was arrested on March 16,2016 and accused of a crime under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, judicial custody by XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidape extended remand from March 16 to July 15 which was submitted by detenu that it was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to relevant provisions of the law and expiry of 90 days the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Mardras High Court, division bench comprising justices M. Jaichandren and S. Baskaran passed the orders while dismissing a habeas corpus plea on Thursday seeking a direction to authorities to produce Rishwan Sheriff, a remand prisoner, and contending that on the expiry of 90 days, the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
“Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, does not exclude the jurisdiction of the magistrate from exercising the remand extension power beyond 90 days. However, the said power can be exercised up to 180 days,” the court said.
Bench further said that “The proviso of the section makes it clear that the magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person beyond the prescribed period if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. As such it is clear that necessary procedures had been followed by the magistrate concerned in extending the remand of the detenu in question.”