Saleema vs The State Rep. By Its
batch
Singh vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) and C.A. Pious vs. State of
Kerala and another11, held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.89 seconds)Documents citing
C.A. Pious vs The State Of Kerala And Anr on 14 September, 2007
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs The Reg. Supreme Court Of India &Amp Ors on 2 September, 2014
46. We make it clear that the law laid down in this judgment,
viz., the right of a limited oral hearing in review petitions
where death sentence is given, shall be applicable only in
pending review petitions and such petitions filed in future. It
will also apply where a review petition is already dismissed but
the death sentence is not executed so far. In such cases, the
62
petitioners can apply for the reopening of their review petition
within one month from the date of this judgment. However, in
those cases where even a curative petition is dismissed, it
would not be proper to reopen such matters.
Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2008
Section 55A defines
"appropriate Government". Section 57 provides that in calculating
fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned
as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. It is now conclusively
settled by a catena of decisions that the punishment of imprisonment for
life handed down by the Court means a sentence of imprisonment for the
convict for the rest of his life. (See the decisions of this Court in Gopal
Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra &others, (1961) 3 SCR 440
(Constitution Bench); Dalbir Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, (1979)
3 SCC 745; Maru Ram vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107
(Constitution Bench); Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 454;
Ashok Kumar alias Golu vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498; Laxman
46
Naskar (Life Convict) vs. State of W.B.,, (2000) 7 SCC 626; Zahid
Hussein vs. State of West Bengal, (2001) 3 SCC 750; Kamalanantha vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 5 SCC 194; Mohd.Munna vs. Union of
India, (2005) 7 SCC 416 and C.A.Pious vs. State of Kerala, (2007) 8
SCC 312).
Dr. Ashaq Hussain Factoo vs State Of J&K & Others on 16 November, 2012
(See the decisions of this Court in
Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra &
others, (1961) 3 SCR 440 (Constitution Bench); Dalbir
Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 745;
Maru Ram vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107
(Constitution Bench); Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab,
(1983) 2 SCC 454; Ashok Kumar alias Golu vs. Union of
India, (1991) 3 SCC 498; Laxman Naskar (Life Convict)
vs. State of W.B., (2000) 7 SCC 626; Zahid Hussein vs.
State of West Bengal, (2001) 3 SCC 750; Kamalanantha
vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 5 SCC 194; Mohd.Munna
vs. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 416 and C.A.Pious vs.
State of Kerala, (2007) 8 SCC 312).
R.Suresh S/O Rowthram vs State Represented By The Inspector Of ... on 22 October, 2009
At this stage, it will be useful to take a very brief look at the provisions with regard to sentencing and computation, remission, etc. of sentences. Section 45 of the Penal Code defines life to mean the life of the human being, unless the contrary appears from the context. Section 53 enumerates punishments, the first of which is death and the second, imprisonment for life. Sections 54 and 55 give to the appropriate Government the power of commutation of the sentence of death and the sentence of imprisonment for life respectively. Section 55-A defines appropriate Government. Section 57 provides that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. It is now conclusively settled by a catena of decisions that the punishment of imprisonment for life handed down by the Court means a sentence of imprisonment for the convict for the rest of his life. [See the decisions of this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (1961) 3 SCR 440 (Constitution Bench); Dalbir Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 745; Maru Ram vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 (Constitution Bench); Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab(1983) 2 SCC 454; Ashok Kumar alias Golu vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498; Laxman Naskar (Life Convict) vs. State of W.B., (2000) 7 SCC 626; Zahid Hussein vs. State of West Bengal, (2001) 3 SCC 750; Kamalanantha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 5 SCC 194; Mohd. Munna vs. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 416 and C.A. Pious vs. State of Kerala, (2007) 8 SCC 312).
S.Nalini Srikaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 April, 2010
11. C.A.PIOUS VS. STATE OF KERALAW AND ANOTHER [(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 544.
The State Represented By vs Yesu @ Velaiyan on 14 September, 2011
31. As we have seen earlier, in Kerala State as referred to in C.A.Pious Case, there is a Rule regulating grant of parole known as 'Kerala Prison Rules, 1958' issued under the Prisons Act. In that Rules, if a prisoner is released temporarily either on emergency leave or ordinary leave, the said period shall be counted as sentence period. In so far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, here also there is a rule known as the "Tamil Nadu Prison Rules" issued under the Prisons Act. But the said Rules do not regulate temporary release of prisoner on parole, instead, yet again it deals only with the suspension of sentence. Rule 239(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules reads as follows:
Sudalai vs State Represented By on 28 August, 2008
96. It is now conclusively settled by a catena of decisions that the
punishment of imprisonment for life handed down by the Court means a sentence of
imprisonment for the convict for the rest of his life and the latest decision is
C.A.Pious vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 312.
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs The Reg. Supreme Court Of India & Ors on 2 September, 2014
46. We make it clear that the law laid down in this judgment, viz., the
right of a limited oral hearing in review petitions where death sentence is
given, shall be applicable only in pending review petitions and such
petitions filed in future. It will also apply where a review petition is
already dismissed but the death sentence is not executed so far. In such
cases, the petitioners can apply for the reopening of their review petition
within one month from the date of this judgment. However, in those cases
where even a curative petition is dismissed, it would not be proper to
reopen such matters.
Tarachand Kapari @ Taranand Kapari @ ... vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief ... on 19 January, 2016
71. The Supreme Court, while making references to
the cases of Gopal Vinayak Godse (supra), Dalbir Singh v. State
of Punjab (supra), Maru Ram (supra), Naib Singh v. State of
Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 454, Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (1991)
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1042 of 2015 dt.19-01-2016
38/56
3 SCC 498 Laxman Naskar (supra) Zahid Hussein v. State of
W.B.(2001) 3 SCC 750, Kamalanantha v. State of T.N. (2005) 5
SCC 194, 29, Mohd. Munna v. Union of India (supra) and C.A.
Pious v. State of Kerala (2007) 8 SCC 312, observed, in Swami
Shraddanand (supra), that it is, now, conclusively settled that
the punishment of imprisonment for life, handed down by the
Court, means a sentence of imprisonment for the rest of
convict‟s life and it is equally well settled that Section 57 of the
Indian Penal Code does not, in any way, limit the punishment of
imprisonment for life to a term of twenty years inasmuch as
Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code is only for calculating
fractions of terms of punishment and provides that imprisonment
for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for
twenty years and that such an object and purpose of Section 57
will be clear by simply referring to Sections 65, 116, 119, 129
and 511 of the Penal Code.