Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.45 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 C.A.R.
280(SC) and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5
(SC), to contend that petitioner be released on probation.
Paul George vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 14 March, 2008
Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paul George
v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185, by taking note
of a fact that accident had occurred 20 years earlier, ordered that the convict
be released on probation.
Baldev Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 1995
Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of
judgments mentioned above, conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however,
sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is set aside and he is ordered to be
released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958, for a period of six months. By taking note of a fact that due to rash and
Criminal Revision No. 671 of 2002 8
negligent driving by the petitioner, one valuable human life has lost and also
in view of ratio of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh
and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372 and Manish
Jalan v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 225, fine
imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- over and above the fine already
imposed by the trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above
said amount, within three months from today, with the trial Court. On
deposit so being made, the trial Court shall issue notice to the legal heirs of
the deceased and disburse the above said amount to them forthwith. It is
made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above,
this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner
shall also execute bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court
that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime
of the same nature during the period of probation. He is directed to furnish
bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court within three months
from today.
Manish Jalan vs State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2008
Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of
judgments mentioned above, conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however,
sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is set aside and he is ordered to be
released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958, for a period of six months. By taking note of a fact that due to rash and
Criminal Revision No. 671 of 2002 8
negligent driving by the petitioner, one valuable human life has lost and also
in view of ratio of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh
and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372 and Manish
Jalan v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 225, fine
imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- over and above the fine already
imposed by the trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above
said amount, within three months from today, with the trial Court. On
deposit so being made, the trial Court shall issue notice to the legal heirs of
the deceased and disburse the above said amount to them forthwith. It is
made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above,
this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner
shall also execute bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court
that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime
of the same nature during the period of probation. He is directed to furnish
bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court within three months
from today.
Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 July, 1990
Otherwise also, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj
Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611, has opined that scope
to interfere in revision, in judgments passed by the Courts below involving
offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC, is very limited.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Karamjit Singh vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 24 April, 2000
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh
versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, in paragraph
No.7 observed as under:-
1