Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)
Govindbhai Ghelabhai Nayak vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 1998 cites

Dipakkumar Bhanuprasad Upadhyay vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 28 November, 1997

In this regard, a very similar question had come up to be determined by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Dipakkumar Bhanuprasad Updhyay v. State of Gujarat and Ors. as reported in [1998(1)] XXXIX (1) GLR 1 (FB), wherein one of us (R. K. Abichandani, J.) was a party and Bench has dealt with this question in greater detail. It would be appropriate to quote the following observations, which can squarely apply to the present case as well (at page No. 7 of GLR):
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 January, 1961

In Ashok Kumar's case (supra) the Supreme Court after referring to the ratio of Godse's case (supra) and Maru Ram's case (supra) held that where a person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, the remissions earned by him during his internment in prison under the relevant remission rules have a limited scope and do not acquire significance until the sentence is remitted under Section 432 of the Code, in which case the remission would be subject to limitation of Section 433A of the Code, unless of course power is exercised under Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution. The State Government has, however, a discretion under Section 432 of the Code to remit the remaining part of the sentence and order release of the convicted prisoner, subject to the embargo on its right imposed under Section 433A of the Code. Such an embargo does not exist when Governor exercises power under Article 161 of the Constitution, and the limits of remission that the Governor sets in his order would not be subject to any judicial review and it would not be open for us to give an elastic meaning to the expression "imprisonment" occurring therein more particularly when the meaning is made specific by describing it as "actual imprisonment".
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 227 - Full Document
1