Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Nadir Khan vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 3 June, 1975
15. Evidently the High Court of Allahabad in coming to the conclusion that the Sessions Judge in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction has no power to enhance the sentence has relied on Nadir Khan v. State (1976 Cri LJ 1721 : AIR 1976 SC 2205). A perusal of this case reveals that the question as to the extent and ambit of the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge was neither under consideration nor was at all considered in the said case. Therefore, it cannot be said on the basis of the said case that the powers of the Sessions Judge are not concurrent and co-extensive with the powers of the High Court even to entertain a revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. Therefore, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court. On the contrary the view taken by the High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat appears to be correct.
Section 40 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 399 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Janardan Sarvottam Rao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 September, 1975
In Janardan Sarvottam Rao v. The State of Maharashtra (1976 (2) FAC 108) while dealing with the question whether the Sessions Judge can enhance the sentence in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, Bombay High Court held as under :
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979
In Mohammad Sabir v. The State of Maharashtra (1978 Cri LJ 825), the same High Court while dealing with similar question held as follows :
Prabhudas Chhaganlal And Anr. vs Babubhai Virabhai Miseria And Anr. on 20 September, 1976
In Prabhudas Chhaganlal v. Babubhai Virabhai Miseria (1977 Cri LJ 1666), while dealing with a similar question, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held as under :
1