Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing G.Sankar vs A.B.Varadarajan on 19 April, 2007

K.P. Ishaque vs Reveendran Thampan on 10 March, 2010

41. The only other way to save the interests of justice in such a situation would be to follow the course adopted by the Madras High Court in Roja Kamalam v. State (AIR 1971 Madras 41) and G. Sankar v. A.B. Varadarajan (2007 (3) Crimes 590) - of unnecessarily setting aside the finding regarding conviction also. In those cases the Judges finding Crl.R.P. No.428 of 2001 -: 35 :- themselves powerless under Sec.386(b) chose to set aside the conviction also to serve the ends of justice. To us, it appears that it would be a totally unnecessary and unjustified course causing unnecessary trauma, misery and protraction. We are of the opinion that such an unnecessary setting aside of the order of conviction merely to facilitate a remand to impose a just sentence would be totally unjustified. Such a course can be avoided giving a purposive interpretation to the expression "the finding and sentence".
Kerala High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Akhilesh @ Attu Gupta vs M/S Siddhant Febrication on 15 March, 2024

3. It is argued that such direction is contrary to the order passed by the High Court of Madras in the case of G. Sankar vs. A.B. Varadarajan (2007) 2 MPLJ (Cri.) 767; wherein the Hon'ble Court has categorically held that the appellate Court against conviction can reverse the finding and sentence or acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such appellate court or committed for trial, but no such direction can be granted to decide the question of punishment again.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document
1