Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.24 seconds)Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Aslam Babalal Desai vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1992
The next question that arises is whether bail wrongly
allowed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled. The
counsel for the petitioner had referred to Aslam Babalal Desal Vs.
State of Maharashtra 1993 AIR (SC)1, Shailesh Kishore Sinha
Bipin Bihari Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand 2013(4) JLJR 249,
Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009(15)
SCC 75, Manjit Prakash & Ors. Vs. Shobha Devi & Anr.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 167 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kuldeep Singh And Others vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Other on 4 August, 1989
After the amendment in Section 376 IPC, the
punishment under Section 376 IPC is for a term which is not less
than 7 years but which may extend to life imprisonment along with
fine. Where minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed,
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2016 00:07:16 :::
Crl. Rev. No.2763 of 2015 9
both are imposable depending on the facts of each case. It is for the
Court after recording conviction which has to impose the sentence
and it cannot be said that only minimum sentence can be imposed
and not the maximum sentence. Section 304-B IPC provides for a
sentence in a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which
may extend to for imprisonment for life. This Court in Kuldeep
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 958 had held
that in a case registered under Section 304-B IPC the period for
filing of challan would be 90 days.
State Of Maharashtra vs Ketan Sheth S/O Kantibhai Sheth And Anr. on 17 September, 2002
The Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Ketan Sheth Kantibhai Sheth and another 2003(3) RCR (Crl.)
210 observed as under:-
Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 31 July, 2009
The next question that arises is whether bail wrongly
allowed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled. The
counsel for the petitioner had referred to Aslam Babalal Desal Vs.
State of Maharashtra 1993 AIR (SC)1, Shailesh Kishore Sinha
Bipin Bihari Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand 2013(4) JLJR 249,
Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009(15)
SCC 75, Manjit Prakash & Ors. Vs. Shobha Devi & Anr.