Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Kumar vs Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 31 January, 2000

Raj Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 October, 2019

12. The last submission of the counsel was that this Court may follow what was done in Santosh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation and Anr.16, where under similar circumstances the sentence of six months imprisonment was commuted and the State Government was directed to pass formal orders of commutation. It appears that the Bench in Santosh Kumar’s case (supra) followed the judgment in N. Sukumaran Nair vs. 16(2000) 9 SCC 151 9 Food Inspector, Mavelikara17, and we find that in both these cases there is no discussion of scope and ambit of Section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Cr.PC). We are, therefore, of the view that these judgments are per incuriam and do not lay down any legal proposition that provisions of Section 433 of Cr.PC can be invoked in such cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 40 - D Gupta - Full Document

Jeevan Lal Nahata vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Now State Of ... on 22 March, 2011

11. Consequently, in absence of any addition of material and slight marginal variation in one of constituents, as held in the case of Santosh (supra), the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, sentence imposed upon the applicant is modified to the extent that the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the trial court as fine within thirty days from today, failing which he shall undergo imprisonment for three months. The applicant shall be at liberty to apply before the appropriate Government for commutation of his jail sentence under Section 433 (d) of the CrPC within forty-five days from today and shall intimate in writing to the trial Court by filing a copy of the same. If the applicant files such application before the appropriate Government, sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court shall be suspended till the disposal of the said application. In case if the applicant fails to comply or his sentence is not commuted under Section 433 (d) of the CrPC, the applicant shall surrender himself before the trial Court for serving remaining sentence.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jeevan Lal Nahata vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Now State Of ... on 22 March, 2011

11. Consequently, in absence of any addition of material and slight marginal variation in one of constituents, as held in the case of Santosh (supra), the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, sentence imposed upon the applicant is modified to the extent that the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the trial court as fine within thirty days from today, failing which he shall undergo imprisonment for three months. The applicant shall be at liberty to apply before the appropriate Government for commutation of his jail sentence under Section 433 (d) of the CrPC within forty-five days from today and shall intimate in writing to the trial Court by filing a copy of the same. If the applicant files such application before the appropriate Government, sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court shall be suspended till the disposal of the said application. In case if the applicant fails to comply or his sentence is not commuted under Section 433 (d) of the CrPC, the applicant shall surrender himself before the trial Court for serving remaining sentence.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next