Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.30 seconds)
Harvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 March, 2009 cites

Shree Mahavir Oil Mills & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 29 November, 1996

"19. However, keeping in view the fact Criminal Revision No. 1156 of 1997 18 that the petitioner was 50 years of age at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and he would be, by now, fairly advanced in the age, as also the fact that he has faced the agony of criminal proceedings for the last more than 16-1/2 years, I am of the opinion that the sentence awarded to him deserves to be reduced to that of fine. For this view, I draw support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and another v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 1996(2) RCR (Criminal 591: 1996(1)F.A.C. 258 (SC) and also from the judgments of Allahabad High Court in Bhageloo v. State of U.P. and another, 1996(2) F.A.C. 199 and of this Court in Mahavir v. State through Govt. Food Inspector, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 208 (P&H)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 76 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979

"8. The last submission made in this regard was pertaining to the sentence. It was argued that incident pertains to the year 1980 and the petitioner is facing the agony of a prolonged trial and thereafter appeal and the revision, 16 years have elapsed. The decision in the case of Hyssainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 had set the law into motion. The scope of Article 21 was extended and it was held that expeditious disposal of the cases was an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. In paragraph 5 it was held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 992 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Ramdaras Ahir And Ors. on 6 August, 1984

'Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair and just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial and by speedy trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined Criminal Revision No. 1156 of 1997 11 in Article 21.' The same question was considered by a Bench of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar v. Ramdaras Ahir and others, 1985 Crl. L.J. 584. It was concluded that the word 'trial' would bring within its sweep, the appeal that would be pending against such an order. In paragraph 17 the Court had held:
Patna High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Anurag Baitha vs State Of Bihar on 4 February, 1987

'Therefore, there seems to be no option, but to hold that the word 'trial' in the context of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial includes within its sweep a substantive appeal provided by the Code to the High Court - whether against conviction or against acquittal. Thus, it would follow that the constitutional right of speedy trial envisaged an equally expeditious conclusion of a substantive appeal and not merely a technical completion of the proceedings in the original Court alone.' Subsequently, the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Anurag Baitha v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 Patna 274 reiterated the same view and in paragraph 11 it was held:
Patna High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 29 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next