Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 360 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Mann Prakash vs State Of Haryana on 7 September, 1995
I further rely upon Mann Parkash V. State of Haryana, 1996(1)
RCR 437, wherein again benefit of probation section 360 CrPC was given. It
has been held that:
Ved Parkash vs The State Of Haryana on 20 August, 1996
"The Courts have emphasized that sentencing an accused person
is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical
prescription acting on hunch. The Courts are required to collect material
necessary to award just punishment and also to apply its mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case whether an accused/convict can be given the benefit
of the provisions of Section 360 CrPC or the provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Ved Parkash V. State of
Haryana, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 643 while emphasising the need of
dealing with the offenders in such a manner that he becomes a nonoffender,
observed as under:
Transmission Corporation Of A.P vs Gridco Of Orissa & Ors on 18 February, 2010
It has been further held that "In a very recent case titled as A.P.
Raju V. State of Orissa, 1995 Supreme Court Cases 675, the Supreme Court
while dealing with a case of death by rash and negligent driving under
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, held as under:
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 361 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 21 October, 2011
In support of his contention regarding identity of
accused/appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 1999(2)
RCR (Criminal) page 555 titled as Sunder @ Surinder V. State of
CR No. 37/11 2/8
Haryana, wherein it has been held that in absence of TIP, identification of
accused by the PWs in the court for the first time cannot be made basis for
holding the accused guilty.