Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Gopala Balu Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 September, 2011

Subhash Chander vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2013

The sentence of imprisonment for 10 years and for one year in default on payment of fine (i.e. substantive sentence and default sentence) stands abated on the death of the appellant but the fine of ` one lac is still there. Identical view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopala Balu Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (2) Bom CR 789: Mh JL 346, wherein, in identical circumstances fine imposed by the trial Court has been abated.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

C.B.I vs P.V.Subbarao on 31 August, 2018

20. Though Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the legal heir of Accused No.8- Makarand Vasant Shidhaye, has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Gopala Balu Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 300 , to submit that, in the said Judgment, this Court has, on abatement of the Appeal, due to death of the Appellant, set aside even the order of payment of fine, as the Appeal would abate in respect of the sentence of imprisonment; in my considered opinion, as it was done in the Appeal by the Appellate Court and not by the Trial Court, the said 13/14 ::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 03:01:46 ::: Judgment cannot be of any assistance to seek such prayer before this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Charan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 August, 2012

Learned amicus curiae appearing for the original appellant has taken this court through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and also through the evidence. So far as the sentence of imprisonment for 10 years RI and for six months in default on payment of fine (i.e. Substantive sentence and default sentence) stand abated on the death of the appellant, in my view, the sentence of fine no more exists and therefore, there is no reason to maintain and continue the order imposing the fine of Rs.1.00 lac as the default clause of imprisonment in lieu of this already stands abated. Identical view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopala Balu Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(2) Bom CR 789:2012(3) Mh JL 346. I am of the opinion that non payment of fine would have led to further imprisonment, son in substance, the order to pay fine is that of sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay fine. There appears no logic in insisting upon the payment of Crl. Appeal No.S-638-SB of 2001 -: 6 :- fine, then it would amount to going beyond the order of sentence passed by the trial court. Insistence on recovery may be justified where the default clause of the sentence is not there or it is in lieu of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of 1973. Therefore, the appeal abates in entirety. Ordered accordingly.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 August, 2012

Learned counsel for the original appellant has taken this court through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and also through the evidence. So far as the sentence of imprisonment for 10 years RI and for six months in default on payment of fine (i.e. Substantive sentence and default sentence) stand abated on the death of the appellant, in my view, the sentence of fine no more exists and therefore, there is no reason to maintain and continue the order imposing the fine of Rs.1.00 lac as the default clause of imprisonment in lieu of this already stands abated. Identical view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopala Balu Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(2) Bom CR 789:2012(3) Mh JL 346. I am of the opinion that non payment of fine would have led to further imprisonment, son in substance, the order to pay fine is that of sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay fine. There appears no logic in insisting upon the payment of fine, then it would amont to going beyond the order of sentence pased by the trial court. Insistence on recovery may be justified where the default clause of the sentence is not there or it is in lieu of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of 1973. Therefore, the appeal abates in entirety. Ordered accordingly.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Ladha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 November, 2012

The sentence of imprisonment for 7 years RI and for two years in default on payment of fine (i.e. Substantive sentence and default sentence) stand abated on the death of the appellant, in my view, the sentence of fine no more exists and therefore, there is no reason to maintain and continue the order imposing the fine of Rs.25,000/- as the default clause of imprisonment in lieu of this already stands abated. Identical view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopala Balu Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(2) Bom CR 789:2012(3) Mh JL 346. I am of the opinion that non payment of fine would have led to further imprisonment, in sum and substance, the order to pay fine is that of sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay fine. There appears no logic in insisting upon the payment of fine, then it would amount to going beyond the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Insistence on recovery may be justified where the default clause of the sentence is not there or it is in lieu of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of 1973. Therefore, the appeal abates in entirety. Ordered accordingly.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - P Singh - Full Document

Harcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 2012

The sentence of imprisonment for 10 years RI and for six months in default on payment of fine (i.e. Substantive sentence and default sentence) stand abated on the death of the appellant, in my view, the sentence of fine no more exists and therefore, there is no reason to maintain and continue the order imposing the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- as the default clause of imprisonment in lieu of this already stands abated. Identical view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopala Balu Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(2) Bom CR 789:2012(3) Mh JL 346. I am of the opinion that non payment of fine would have led to further imprisonment, in sum and substance, the order to CRA S-988-SB OF 2002 6 pay fine is that of sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay fine. There appears no logic in insisting upon the payment of fine, then it would amount to going beyond the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Insistence on recovery may be justified where the default clause of the sentence is not there or it is in lieu of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of 1973. Therefore, the appeal abates in entirety. Ordered accordingly.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Kishan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 2013

The sentence of imprisonment for 10 years RI and for two years in default on payment of fine (i.e. Substantive sentence and default sentence) stand abated on the death of the appellant, in my view, the sentence of fine no more exists and therefore, there is no reason to maintain and continue the order imposing the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- as the default clause of imprisonment in lieu of this already stands abated. Identical view has been expressed by a Crl. Appeal No. S-943-SB of 2005 6 Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopala Balu Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(2) Bom CR 789:2012(3) Mh JL 346. I am of the opinion that non payment of fine would have led to further imprisonment, in sum and substance, the order to pay fine is that of sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay fine. There appears no logic in insisting upon the payment of fine, then it would to going beyond the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Insistence on recovery may be justified where the default clause of the sentence is not there or it is in lieu of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of 1973. Therefore, the appeal abates in entirety. Ordered accordingly.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Ram Piara vs State Of Punjab on 20 August, 2014

The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and for six months in default on payment of fine (i.e. substantive sentence and default sentence) stand abated on the death of the appellant, in my view, sentence of fine no more exists and, therefore, there is no reason to maintain and continue the order imposing the fine of ` 1,00,000/- as the PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.08.22 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-858-SB-2000 -6- default clause of imprisonment in lieu of this already stands abated. Identical view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Gopala Balu Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(2) Bom CR 789:2012(3) Mh JL 346. I am of the opinion that non-payment of fine would have led to further imprisonment, in sum and substance, the order to pay fine is that of sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay fine. There appears no logic in insisting upon the payment of fine, then it would amount to going beyond the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Insistence on recovery may be justified where the default clause of the sentence is not there or it is in lieu of compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Code of 1973. Therefore, the appeal abates in entirety. Ordered accordingly.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document
1