Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 357 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 38 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Piyali Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 July, 2017
In the judgment in Piyali Dutta v. State of
West Bengal and Others (2017 Cr.LJ 4041), the
Calcutta High Court held that Section 357A is time
neutral, i.e, it does not distinguish between victims of
a crime happening before the introduction of the
section in the statute with those incidents of crime
happening post its introduction in the statute book. It
was also held that the section does not make any
distinction between victims on the basis of the time of
occurrence of the crime and also that, segregation on
the basis of time, is unacceptable and would militate
against the right to equality and equal treatment by
the State guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Sree Bank Ltd vs Sarkar Dutt Roy And Co on 9 April, 1965
facts does not necessarily make the provision
retrospective". The above referred, two English
decisions, were relied upon by the Supreme
Court, in Sree Bank Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Sarkar
Dutt Roy & Co. (AIR 1966 SC 1953), while it was
considering the retrospective application of Section
45O of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, (brought in
by an amendment of 30-12-1953, as per which the
period spent on presenting and pursuing a winding up
petition can be excluded for determining the period of
limitation to revive a time barred debt).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2013
19. The language of Section 357 Cr. P.C. at a
glance may not suggest that any obligation is cast
upon a Court to apply its mind to the question of
compensation in every case. The word, "may" as
found in Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. prima facie means
that the Court may order for the whole or any part of a
fine recovered to be applied towards compensation.
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court by
stating that it "may" award compensation even in such
cases where the sentence imposed does not include
the fine. It is by now well settled that cases may arise
where a provision is "mandatory" despite the use of
language that makes it "discretionary" as has been
-9-
held by the Apex Court in the case of ANKUSH
SHIVAJI GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
It is also observed by the Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgment that Section 357 Cr. P.C.
confers a power coupled with a mandatory duty on
the Court to apply its mind to the question of awarding
compensation in every criminal case. While observing
so, the Apex Court has kept in mind the background
and context in which Section 357 Cr. P.C. was
introduced.