Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.60 seconds)The M.P. Excise Act, 1915
Ravikant S. Patil vs Sarvabhouma S. Bagali on 14 November, 2006
13. So far as the tests for staying the conviction is concerned,
the Apex Court in the case of Ravikant S. Patil vs.
Sarvabhouma S. Bagali reported in (2007) 1 SCC 673 has
held as under :-
C.B.I,New Delhi vs Roshan Lal Saini on 21 July, 2008
State of Punjab v. Navraj Singh AIR 2008 SC 2962; and
CBI, New Delhi v. Roshan Lal Saini, AIR 2009 SC 755).
State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors on 27 August, 2004
11. It is a trite law that this Court can exercise the power of
revision by invoking the power of appellate court as has been
held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand reported in (2004)
7 SCC 659, which reads thus :-
Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang & Another on 15 March, 2007
This Court held that the principle
laid down in Ram Narang (supra) was that
conviction and sentence can both be suspended
only if non-grant of suspension of conviction
would result in damage which could not be
undone if ultimately the appeal/revision was
allowed. On facts, it was found that even if stay of
conviction was not granted, no prejudice would be
caused to the convicted person, having regard to
the fact that when the revisions against the
conviction and sentences were ultimately allowed,
the damage, if any, caused to the respondents
therein with regard to payment of stipends etc.
could well be revived and made good to the them.
This Court noted that if such trifling matters
involving slight disadvantage to the convicted
person were to be taken into consideration, every
conviction would have to be suspended pending
appeal or revision. It was further noted that the
High Court did not consider at all the moral
conduct of the respondents inasmuch as the
respondent Jaganathan who was a Police Inspector
had been convicted under Sections 392, 218 and
466 IPC, while the other respondents who were
also public servants had been convicted under the
provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. Under
those circumstances, the discretion exercised by
the High Court in suspending the conviction was
reversed.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs A. Jaganathan on 15 July, 1996
"In State of Tamil Nadu v. A.Jaganathan, [1996] 5
SCC 329, the State challenged the order of the
Cr.R. No.209/2020
(9)
High Court which had granted suspension of the
conviction as also the sentence, relying on Rama
Narang (supra).