Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)Section 279 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
Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CAR 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.
Baldev Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 1995
Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio
of the aforesaid judgments, conviction is upheld. However, sentence of
imprisonment of the petitioner 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. Keeping in view ratio of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 98 OF 2002 -8-
1996 SC 372, and to settle equity between the parties, fine imposed is
enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of
fine with the trial Court within three months from today and on deposit so
being made, trial Court will issue a notice to legal heirs of the deceased
Niwasa and disburse this amount to them forthwith. In case amount is not
deposited, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
The petitioner shall execute bail bond and undertaking before the trial Court
that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime
of the like nature during the period of six months. Requisite bail bonds and
undertaking be furnished within three months.
Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 July, 1990
Shri Anil Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner has made an
attempt to lay challenge to the judgments passed by the Courts below by
making reference to discrepancies here and there in the evidence led by the
prosecution. However, he has failed to show that there was any misreading
of evidence on the part of the Courts below. The case of the prosecution is
fully proved by the witnesses and also with documentary evidence on
record. Otherwise also, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal ) 611: 2008
(4) R.A.J. 371, it is not possible for this Court to interfere on merits, except
in exceptional circumstances where glaring mistake might have been
committed by the Courts below. Nothing of the sort has been indicated in
this case. Faced with the situation, Shri Ghangas states that the petitioner is
a first offender. He is a poor person and that he is the only bread winner of
the family. Prayer for release of the petitioner on probation has been made.
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 v.
State (Delhi Admn.) , 2001(9) Supreme Court 161, in paragraph No. 7,
observed as under:-
1