Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Md Dilawar Mir vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 November, 2014 cites

Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang & Ors on 19 January, 1995

Of course, the aforesaid proposition is unexceptionable. However, it must be read as a whole. In substance, what it means is that any such disqualification based on a conviction has to be treated with caution, and if the appellate court admits an appeal impugning that conviction, it must examine all relevant circumstances carefully to decide whether the conviction deserves to be stayed, mindful of the fact that it may be impossible to undo the consequences visited on the convict even if he were to eventually succeed in his appeal. This, however, does not mean that the test before the appellate court is restricted merely to that outcome alone. In other words, it cannot be presumed that in every case where it is demonstrated that the damage due to the disqualification cannot be undone if the appellant were to succeed some months or even years later, such disqualification should not be allowed to operate at all during the pendency of the appeal. There has to be something more. If the test was that simple, Crl.Appeal No.1535/2014 Page 3 of 10 then the aforesaid paragraph 19 of Rama Narang's case (ibid), reproduced above, would have been couched in very different language and in absolute terms, which it is not. Also, it would not have been necessary for the Supreme Court to state that the appellate court should examine the pros and cons and arrive at an appropriate conclusion in each individual matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 157 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 31 March, 2009

Counsel for the appellant has also tried to distinguish the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 5 SCC 787] by submitting that the offence in Sanjay Dutt's case was under Arms Act; and the petitioner therein had sought to contest elections for the first time, which is not the case here. He further submitted that the credentials and antecedents of the appellant have been clean, and he has been elected and re-elected as many as six times. This Court is not impressed by this submission. Admittedly, the appellant last held public office in 2008 and not thereafter. And fact remains that after being convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act involving the misuse of a public office, the appellant is seeking the stay of conviction only to facilitate him to hold a public office.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 27 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Jalal Ahmed Mazumdar vs State Of Assam on 12 December, 2007

Counsel for the respondent-CBI has also relied on Jalal Ahmed Mazumdar v. State of Assam [(2008) 2 Gau 509] to support the proposition that the conviction of an appellant cannot be suspended merely to enable him to contest an election. Such suspension is warranted only in exceptional cases. He submits that the conviction of an appellant can be suspended only if the facts of his case so merit. He further submits that the present case is not one where the appellant stands convicted without any evidence; and for that reason also, his conviction must not be stayed merely because he seeks to contest elections.
Gauhati High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - I Ansari - Full Document
1   2 Next