Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.67 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Amar Chand Agarwalla vs Shanti Bose And Another Etc on 22 December, 1972
12. It is well settled by the Apex Court in Amarchand Agarwalla v. Santi
Bose1 that normally the revisional jurisdiction of the Court has to be exercised
only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or
there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in
flagrant miscarriage of justice.
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979
14. Undeniably, right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal
and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
as annunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v.
Home Secretary State of Bihar2.
State Thr.C.B.I. vs Sanjiv Bhalla on 4 July, 2014
"22. It does appear that depending upon the facts of each
case, causing death by what appears (but is not) to be a rash or
negligent act may amount to an offence punishable under Part II of
Section 304 IPC, not warranting the release of the convict under
probation. There may also be situations where an offence is
punishable under Section 304-A IPC in an accident "where mens
rea remains absent" and refusal to release a convict on probation
in such a case may be too harsh an approach to take. An absolute
principle of law cannot be laid down that in no case falling under
Section 304-A IPC should a convict be released on probation. This
is certainly not to say that in all cases falling under Section 304-A
IPC, the convict must be released on probation-it is only that the
principles laid down in Sections 360 and 361 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and the Probation of Offenders Act should not be
disregarded but should be followed and an appropriate decision,
depending on the facts of the case, be taken in each case."
State Of Punjab vs Saurabh Bakshi on 30 March, 2015
In State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
set aside the reduced sentence imposed by the High Court and held that the
Revisionist therein would not be entitled to the benefit of probation as he was
professional driver, so no leniency or compassion can be shown unless
mitigating circumstances were proved to be existing.
State Of M.P vs Mehtaab on 13 February, 2015
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Mehtaab5 set aside the
judgment of the High Court which let off the Accused therein for a period of
sentence of 10 days already undergone.