Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.42 seconds)Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Braham Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 August, 1988
In Braham Dass v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, 1988 (4) SCC 130, the Supreme Court
Criminal Revision No. 164 of 1996 17
held as under:-
Chander Bhan vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana, ... on 3 November, 1981
Same view has been reiterated in Chander Bhan v. State of
Haryana 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 125; Sat Pal vs. State of
Haryana 1998(1) Recent Criminal Reports 75; Ram Kishan vs.
State of Haryana 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports 196; Krishan
Kumar Narang vs. State (U.T.)
Shree Mahavir Oil Mills & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 29 November, 1996
"19. However, keeping in view the fact 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.
Criminal Revision No. 164 of 1996 19
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)".
Mohinder Singh vs State (Chandigarh Administration) on 3 January, 1997
In another judgment of this Court rendered in Mohinder
Singh vs. State (Chandigarh Administration), 1997-1 Vol.CXV
(Punjab Law Reporter) 623, it has been held as under:
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
Criminal Revision No. 164 of 1996 12
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:
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 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: