Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Harbans Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others on 12 February, 1982
18. The principle of parity in criminal case is that, where the case of the
accused is similar in all respects as that of the co-accused then the benefit
extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused. With regard
to this principle, it is important to mention the observation of this court in the
case of Harbans Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [(1982) 2 SCC
101]. In that case it was held, that, in view of commutation of death sentence
of one of the accused, who was similarly placed as that of appellant, award of
death sentence to appellant was unjustified and, hence, the death sentence
of the appellant was stayed till the decision of the President on commutation
of sentence. An important observation of this Court on the point need to be
noticed at this stage:
Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 January, 2002
In the case of Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra,
[(2003) 2 SCC 708], this Court maintained that as the second accused was
placed on the same situation as the appellant, Article 21 of the Constitution
would not permit this court to deny the same benefit to the second accused.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 41 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
This position was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench
in Baldev Singh's case (supra). Above being the position, the contention
regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act is also without any
substance."