Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015
20. Pertinent here is to mention regarding the Courts finding in the case
of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), has referred to on behalf of the writ
petitioner, i.e, :-
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December, 1991
17. The legal expectation of expedition and diligence being
present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in
departmental enquiries has been emphasised by this Court on
numerous occasions. The Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93]
underscored that this right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21
of the Constitution and is also reflected in Section 309 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; that it encompasses all stages
viz. investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial; that
the burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the
delay; that the Court must engage in a balancing test to
determine whether this right had been denied in the particular
case before it. Keeping these factors in mind CAT had in the case
in hand directed that the appellant's suspension would not be
extended beyond 90 days from 19-3-2013. The High Court had
set aside this direction, viewing it as a substitution of a judicial
Page 8 of 11
determination to the authority possessing that power i.e. the
Government."
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 309 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sandipta Gangopadhyay vs Allahabad Bank & Ors on 21 April, 2015
The authority by its conduct, should justify the purpose
of the suspension of the person. Even in case of a deemed
suspension under the Rules, as in case of the present writ
petitioner, he cannot be left in vacuum, to suffer a stigma for an
uncertain vast future period. Thus by dint of the verdict of the
Courts, the period of suspension has been acknowledged to be
limited and not to continue indefinitely, till the criminal trial is
concluded. As it is held in Sanditpa Gangopadhyay's case (supra), that
the trial in a Court may face various impediments and its period
could be elongated for multifarious reasons attributable to various
stakeholders. Continuing to restrain a person to join in duty and
paying him allowance, would not be justifiable, in such an
eventuality.
1