2002 (2) TMI 1104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to go into the question whether section 29(3), (4) and (5), as originally enacted, was not violative of the aforementioned articles. - Civil Appeal No. 1230, 1231 of 1970 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2002 - BHARUCHA S.P., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, LAHOTI R.C., SANTOSH HEGDE N., DORAISWAMY RAJU, RUMA PAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT JJ. K.V. Mohan, Advocate, for the respondent. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advoc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... violative of the aforementioned articles. 2.. The High Court had struck down rule 35, which followed upon section 29. That rule has been replaced by rule 35-A, which follows upon section 29-A. 3.. We note the contention of learned counsel for the State that section 29 was valid because its validity is covered by two decisions of this Court but it is not a question that need detain us, having r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X