Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Govind Ramji Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 1990

Geetha Devi vs D.I.Nathan .... 1St on 24 March, 2015

The appeal is allowed to the extent herein indicated. In the decision reported in 1990 SCC (4) 718 (Govind Ramji Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra) it has been held as follows_ 2.The High Court both in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and its appellate jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of Cr.P.C., in matter of enhancement of sentence should give the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 386 as well under sub-section (3) of Section 377 of the Code. The rules of natural justice as also the prescribed procedure require issuing notice to the appellant and affording an opportunity to be heard on the proposed action for enhancement of sentence. .....
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Iromchitra Devi vs Nongthombam Ajay Meeteiaged And Anr on 19 January, 2022

7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Y. Khan, learned counsel referring to the grounds cited in the memorandum of argument, submitted that as the prosecution has not deliberately preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment and order despite the erroneous appreciation of evidence apparent on record by the learned trial Court, and consequently, meagre sentence of fine being imposed on the accused/respondent No. 1 herein, which is apparently not commensurate with the nature and character of the crime committed. Therefore, the instant appeal is filed by the appellant praying to enhance the inadequate fine amount to the victim's family instead of filing an appeal against the sentence, which right is only available to the prosecution, under Section 372 Cr.P.C. Mr. Khan further submitted citing the ratio of the judgment rendered by the apex court in Govind Ramji Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 4 SCC 718 wherein it has been held that the High Court under Section 377 Cr.P.C. has powers to act suo motu to enhance the sentence Page No.# 7/14 in appropriate cases while exercising its revisional jurisdiction even in the absence of an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence as provided under the aforesaid Section of Cr.P.C. Therefore, Mr. Khan vehemently submitted that in the backdrop of facts and attending circumstances as emerged from the evidence on record, the punishment of fine as compensation to the victim's family be adequately enhanced and paid to them.
Gauhati High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Borthakur - Full Document

M/S I.T.M.S & Company vs Sri A.S.Vishnu Bharath on 25 March, 2022

36. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant also relied upon several judgments, wherein in the judgment in the case of GOVIND RAMJI JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (1990) 4 SCC 718, the Apex 28 Court observed that to achieve the object, the code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to enhance the sentence in appropriate cases where the sentence awarded by the subordinate Courts is grossly inadequate or unconscionably lenient.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Dina Bawri vs State Of Assam on 8 May, 2000

The Apex Court again after a period of fortnight ruled in Govind Ramjijadav v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 4 SCC 718 that the High Court can even suo motu enhance the sentence but must provide predecisional opportunity of showing cause and hearing to the accused- It was held in Govind Ranjijadav's case (supra) that it was permissible for the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC to exercise the power of a court of appeal under Section 386(C) for enhancement of sentence.
Gauhati High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Premlal vs Smt. Basanti Bai on 10 November, 2008

14) In the matter of Govind Ram Vs. State and others2 the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court while dealing with the refund of court fees affixed in the memo of second appeal by the appellant has held that "where the appellant himself filed second appeal and paid the appropriate amount of court fee on it; he was not invited, much more less was he compelled by anyone to do so. The appeal was converted into revision at a later stage when in the course of arguments it was contended that it was not maintainable. A party which files a suit, appeal or application bearing court-fee is not entitled to refund of it when the suit, appeal or application is dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction". It was further held that "merely because the court allowed him to convert the second appeal into revision, he should not have filed second appeal when it did not lie. If an appeal was withdrawn before any action could be taken on it, it might be contended that the court- fee paid on it was not used at all, but the same reasoning cannot be adopted when the appeal comes up for argument and an objection about its maintainability is heard. There is no question of applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment because the State has spent some time and labour in disposing of the appeal".
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next