Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (2.79 seconds)
Documents citing V.K. Bansal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 15 November, 2010

Dalip Kumar vs Sachin Singal on 17 August, 2023

We have perused the ratio in the aforesaid judgment and find that only when the conviction arise out of the single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited. But present are the cases where there were several transactions over a period of time pertaining to supply of raw material to the petitioner for which the cheques tendered towards payment, were dishonoured. Accordingly, we find that the petitioner can have no benefit out of the ratio in V.K. Bansal (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Mohd. Salman vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 September, 2020

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of 4 Hon'ble Apex Court in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & another; reported in (2013) 7 SCC 211, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the criminal appeal is dismissed on merit. However, the part of the judgment is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 366-A IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment fine, he shall serve the additional six months imprisonment and under Section 376 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment, he shall serve the additional six months imprisonment and under Section 506 (2) IPC for four years rigorous imprisonment is hereby affirmed, however all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - N S Dhanik - Full Document

Manish Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 4 September, 2015

"16. When the prosecution is based on single transaction where it constitutes two or more offences, sentences are to run concurrently. Imposing separate sentences, when the acts constituting different offences form part of the single transaction is not justified. So far as the benefit available to the accused to have the sentences to run concurrently of several offences based on single transaction, in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 983: 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 1052 : 2013(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J) 680: (2013) 7 SCC 211, in which one of us (Justice T.S. Thakur) was a member, this Court held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - H P Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next