Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Kesri Chand on 22 February, 1945

The State vs Minaketan Patnaik on 22 April, 1952

23. I am also unable to agree that the C.I.D. Inspector Mr. Ray (P. W. 8) became an abettor by his conduct in laying out the trap and executing the same. As pointed out in 'EMPEROR v. KESRI CHAND', AIR 1945 All 207 at p. 210, relying on the well-known observations of Lord Alverstone C J. in 'REX v. MAR-TIMER', (1911) 1 K. B. 70, a " 'trap' is nothing but the means of detecting crimes, by catching the criminal 'flag-rante delicto.' Just as a crime assumes protean shapes, so has the method of its detection to take countless courses and assume countless forms.....It is to be remembered that the offence of offering to or accepting bribe by a public servant cannot, ordinarily, be detected without laying a trap."
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Lajja Ram vs The State on 8 November, 1951

In Allahabad High Court a criminal revision filed beyond 90 days is generally rejected on the ground of laches: 'EMPEROR v. Kesri Chand', AIR (32) 1945 All 207. No practice has grown up there, nor is there any precedent of this Court on the point. Considering the long distances through difficult terrain which the litigants have to traverse in this State, it will be the practice of this Court in future not to entertain criminal revisions generally if filed beyond 90 days from the order complained of. I therefore hold that the present petition of revision cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of delay.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Siba Prasad Moda vs State Of Orissa on 21 December, 1950

4. Equality intended under Article 14 is not to be judged by equality of sentence. Punishment graded according to age, gravity of the offence in the context of facts & attending circumstances that lend colour to the perversity involved in the crime & other circumstances do not offend the rule of equality that law assumes as to members of the society. The object of punishment is to reform the society by holding out deterrents as precedents. Punishment must be snob as would be felt as punishment by the offender. It must be commensurate with the degree of shook that it causes to the conscience of the society. However in such a general observation, we are strongly supported by Sir Iqbal Ahmad C. J., of the Allahabad H. C. in the case of Emperor v. Kesri Chand, A. I. R. (32) 1945 ALL. 207 : (47 Cr. L. J. 132). His Lordship observes :
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Mysore vs Upparagatti Hanamanthappa on 23 October, 1961

6. This revisional power of the High Court to enhance the sentence is guided by certain principles. Though it has the power to do so it is slow in exercising the same. The mere fact that the High Court as a Court of first instance would have inflicted a heavier sentence is not a good and sufficient ground to enhance the sentence passed after due consideration by the trial Court. Unless the sentence so passed is grossly inadequate so as to amount to a miscarriage of justice the High Court, in my view, should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. I am fortified in my view by a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Kesri Chand A.I.R. 1945 All 207 where it is held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1