Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.08 seconds)
Documents citing Narayan Dutt & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 February, 2011

Mukesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 29 January, 2020

31. As per the settled legal position held in Narayan Dutt and others v. State of Punjab and another (2011) 4 SCC 353, Epuru Sudhakar and Another v. Govt. of A.P. and Others (2006) 8 SCC 161 and Shatrughan Chauhan, the exercise of power under Article 72/161 of the Constitution is subject to challenge only on the grounds indicated thereon. The alleged sufferings in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 21 - R Banumathi - Full Document

State vs . Kiran Bahadur, on 27 September, 2019

"17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and Anr. V. State of Madras : AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal : AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal Singh a nd Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan Chand v. State FIR No.524/2015 State v. Kiran Bahadur PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 11/31 S. C. No.56432/2016 of Haryana : JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) : 2013 (12) SCALE 504).
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinay Sharma vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2020

25. The alleged suffering of the petitioner in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India rejecting petitioner’s mercy petition. As per the settled legal position in Narayan Dutt and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (2011) 4 SCC 353 and Epuru Sudhakar, exercise of power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India is subject to challenge only on the grounds indicated thereon. When the highest constitutional authority, upon perusal of the Note and the various documents placed along with mercy petition, has taken a decision to reject the mercy petition, it cannot be contended that the highest constitutional authority had not applied its mind to the documents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Pyare Lal vs State Of Haryana on 17 July, 2020

68. While examining challenge to the decision taken by the President under Article 72 or the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution, as the case may be, the Court’s power of judicial review of such decision is very limited. The Court can neither sit in appeal nor exercise the power of review, but can interfere if it is found that the decision has been taken without application of mind to the relevant factors or the same is founded on the extraneous or irrelevant considerations or is vitiated due to mala fides or patent arbitrariness (Maru Ram v. Union of India1, Kehar Singh v. Union of India7, Swaran Singh v. State of U.P.6, Satpal v. State of Haryana9, Bikas Chatterjee v. Union of India10, Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P.8 and Narayan Dutt v. State of Punjab13).
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 20 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Prakashvati Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Others on 26 February, 2021

13. We are unable to comprehend as to what prompted the Hon'ble Governor to exercise indulgence in favour of the respondent No.5 despite he had committed a heinous offence wherein three members of a family were done to death by the respondent No.5 and other co-accused who are in Jail, which apparent from the record and the Mercy Committee also denied to consider his application for premature release. Even appeal is pending against the conviction judgment and twice his bail is rejected by this Court in appeal. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Governor does not reflect application of mind. Moreover, the Governor has transgressed his jurisdiction in exercising the power under Articles 161 of the Constitution of India which is against the dictum of the judgment of the Apex Court referred above.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next