Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND KEANE JJ. 1. The appellant was convicted following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Williams J) of intentionally causing serious injury to a man named Khadr Sleiman[1]. A second count, an alternative to the first, charged the appellant with recklessly causing serious injury to Mr Sleiman[2]. Mr Sleiman suffered multiple injuries as the result of being struck by a motor vehicle that at the time was being driven by the appellant. It was the prosecution case that the appellant deliberately struck Mr Sleiman with the vehicle intending thereby to cause him serious injury. It was the defence case that Mr Sleiman was struck accidentally while the appellant manoeuvred his vehicle in reverse in an endeavour to get away from Mr Sleiman, who was menacing him with a knife. 2. During the course of its retirement the jury sought clarification of the distinction between an intention to cause serious injury, the mental element of the offence charged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2965; 1996(2)WLC613
Mohini Kapur, J.1. A number of habeas corpus petitions come up before this Court from time to time for purposes of reduction/commutation of sentences and release on parole/premature release by prisoners undergoing life imprisonment. There is a common belief in some quarters that life imprisonment means imprisonment for 14 years or imprisonment for 20 years and after this period the convict should be released automatically. Looking to the importance of the questions which arise in various habeas corpus petitions, the following questions were framed and advocates were also invited to assist the Court in answering these questions :-1. What is the maximum period of imprisonment which has to be undergone by a person sentenced to life imprisonment? This has to be decided in view of the Rules framed by the State of Rajasthan;2. After how many years of the actual imprisonment or imprisonment including remission is a convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life eligible for being consid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Robinson - 414 U.S. 218 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) United States v. Robinson No. 72-936 Argued October 9, 1973 Decided December 11, 1973 414 U.S. 218 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Having, as a result of a previous check of respondent's operator's permit, probable cause to arrest respondent for driving while his license was revoked, a police officer made a full custody arrest of respondent for such offense. In accordance with prescribed procedures, the officer made a search of respondent's person, in the course of which he found in a coat pocket a cigarette package containing heroin. The heroin was admitted into evidence at the District Court trial, which resulted in respondent's conviction for a drug offense. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the heroin had been obtained as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom1; (1951)53BOMLR717; ILR1952Bom134
Baydekar, J. [1] This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a person, who was originally detained under an order dated 1-4-1948 under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act. It appears that the applicant detenu was arrested in pursuance of tha order on 13-2-1950 and detained in the House of Correction at Byculla under the authority of the order. On 26-2-1950 the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, came into force, and there was consequently passed against, the applicant an order under that Act detaining him under Section 3 of the Act, Subsequently by an order passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons for the Inspector General of Prisons the applicant was transferred from the House of Correction at Byoulla to the Thana Jail, and he was detained there until the applicant made the present application. Under the Preventive Detection Act, 1950, as it stood originally, an order of detention would have remained in force only for a period of one year from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR625
Goddard, J.1. On October 7, 1930, the appellant was convicted before the Special Tribunal set up under Ordinance III of 1930 of certain offences, including those of waging war against the King, contrary to Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, and of murder, contrary to Section 302. For these offences he was sentenced to transportation for life, which is the only sentence, other than death, which can be awarded for these two crimes. After conviction he was imprisoned in the Central Jail at Multan and in January, 1936, was transferred to the Central Jail at Lahore. On August 29, 1932, the Home Secretary to the Government of the Punjab wrote to the Inspector-General of Prisons, saying that the Governor in Council agreed that the appellant, on the score of his crime, was unsuitable for transportation to the Andamans, adding that 'he cannot be deported as a terrorist as the Government of India has not so far addressed any communication authorising the Punjab Government to deport terrorists...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All164; 1959CriLJ283
A.N. Mulla, J.1. This is a criminal revision filed by head constable Lakshmi Narain who belonged to the armed police. He was sent to jail on the 4th of November, 1957. It seems to us that the applicant along with some other police men wanted to have a redress of certain grievances and the applicant and his companions went on hunger-strike on the 1st of November, 1957 while they were still outside. When the applicant came to the jail, he continued his hunger strike and in spite of repeated attempts made by the jail authorities to persuade him to take food, he refused to do so.The jail authorities warned the applicant repeatedly that this is a major offence against jail discipline and the Superintendent of jail also punished him on some occasions in order to persuade him to give up his hunger-strike. These attempts, however, proved unsuccessful and finally the Superintendent of Jail felt that he could not adequately punish the applicant for this continuous breach of jail rules and discip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)1GLR594
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. H. L. Jani, learned A.P.P., on behalf of the respondents. Rule. Mr. A.D. Oza, learned P.P., waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.Before passing the order in the present matter, it is necessary to note the relevant observations made by the Apex Court in case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1579, the relevant observations are quoted as under :-[D] Constitution of India, Articles 19, 32, 226 - Prison excesses- Rights of Prisoner and Duties of the Court.Where the rights of a prisoner either under the Constitution or under other law, are violated the writ power of the Court can and should run to his rescue. There is a warrant for this vigil. The Court process casts the convict into the prison system and the deprivation of his freedom is not a blind penitentiary affliction but a belighted instituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1933; (1998)1GLR1
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner who is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., for which he was convicted and sentenced on 5th April, 1996 in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1985 by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, has presented this petition, seeking benefit of the order of His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat dated 14th August, 1997, under which remission to the extent indicated therein, was granted to the prisoners convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C., falling in the categories mentioned in the said order.2. When this petition came up for hearing before one of us (Mr. Justice M. S. Parikh), as it appeared that the question, whether the periods of furlough and parole enjoyed by a prisoner can be counted for working out the period of 10 years' imprisonment specified in the said remission order, was of public importance affecting a seizable number of prisoners, the matter was directed to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1265
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Like autumn leaves about to be scattered by gust of wind, the petitioners, who are convicted prisoners undergoing their sentences at Central Jail, Jaipur are about to be blown away to Central Jail, Bikaner by the respondents. Since, the petitioners are aggrieved by their proposed transfers from Central Jail, Jaipur to Central Jail, Bikaner, they have sought the refuge of this Court under the writ jurisdiction. Since the grievances are common in all these petitioners, they are being decided by this judgment.2. Obviously, the petitioners have different backgrounds with regard to their criminal cases, which have landed them in the Central Jail, Jaipur. But, the factual matrix of their criminal cases are neither relevant, nor pertinent for the just decision of their case. What is essential to note is that the petitioners' share a common denominator : they are convicted under Section 302 and have been sentenced to life imprisonment. They are undergoing their sentences at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. On 12 December 1966 the appellant, Mr Harry Roberts, was convicted on three counts of murder, having pleaded guilty to two counts and been convicted of the third. The victims in each case were police officers, killed in cold blood at Shepherd's Bush in August 1966 when, in the course of their duty, they stopped a car in which the appellant and two accomplices were travelling to commit an armed robbery. The trial judge rightly described these crimes, which aroused widespread public outrage, as heinous and suggested that the case was one in which the appellant might never be released. He formally recommended that the appellant serve a term of at least 30 years, and in due course the Home Secretary of the day fixed 30 years as the appellant's punitive or tariff term. That term expired in 1996, when the appellant was aged 60. The fifth review of his case by the Parole Board, still current, began in September 2001, and this appeal concerns the procedure...
Tag this Judgment!