Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 591 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs V. Sriharan @ ,Murugan & Ors on 2 December, 2015

A G Perarivalan vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 17 August, 2018

17. The Commission directs the PIO, Judicial Division MHA to furnish an unambiguous reply to the present RTI in hand. The appellant is entitled to know whether any set of rules governing the provisions of Article 72 & 73 of the Constitution of India as well as those under Section 432-435 CRPc were framed by the Central Government in compliance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. V.Sriharan alias @ Murugan and others. The Commission hastens to clarify that the right of appellant to know the rules governing him has no impact on any judicial verdict. Rather, it is in larger public interest that such rules, if in existence, may be widely circulated.
Central Information Commission Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Phool Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 29 April, 2022

58. The ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Swamy Shraddananda(2) Alias Murali Manohar Mishra (supra) as approved in Union of India vs V. Sriharan (supra) and considered in Vikas Yadav (supra) is that the power to impose the modified punishment providing for any specified term of incarceration or till the end of convict's life, as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Apex Court and not by any other inferior Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kartik Subramaniam vs Union Of India & Anr. on 25 January, 2021

(2016) 7 SCC 1, construed the expression "consultation" as used in Section 435 of the Cr.PC to mean "consent" but the said decision was rendered on 02.12.2015 and could not be applied retrospectively. She reasoned that the said decision was rendered after the petitioner had become eligible for his premature release. And, since the said decision had the effect of adversely affecting his substantive rights, it could not be applied retrospectively.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Prakash Lodhe vs State Of U.P.Jail Appeal) on 5 June, 2017

23. The Apex Court in Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan ( supra) as held that it will be the power of State Govt. and there should be a mandatory compliance of the same. Hence, with these observations, we hold that State Govt. may consider the case of appellants. The power would be exercise by the same within six months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Alternative prayer of learned counsel for appellants is that the appellant is in jail since more than 14vyears and the term life may be considered to be not till his last breath. There is force in the submission of the counsel. The principles of Sections 434 and 432 Cr.P.C. had to be invoked by the State Govt. and his case was to be considered on completion of 14 years of incarceration which has not been done.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next