Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)ALD(Cri)321; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)620; 1997CriLJ1794; 1997(1)LS304
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner is a junior counsel who appeared in Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 1994 on the file of this Court which was disposed of by orders dated 20-4-1995. That appeal arose out of a judgment of the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 270 of 1993 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor. One Sri Ganachari Annadurai and Sri Ganachari Chinnabba were tried for offences under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 304 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. respectively. The learned Sessions Judge convicted both the persons for the said charges respectively levelled against them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 1994 was allowed by this Court in respect of Ganachari Chinnabba and the sentence imposed upon him was set aside and he was directed to be set at liberty forthwith by the said orders D/- 20-4-1994. However, the said appellant Ganachari Chinnabba was not released from the Jail and continued in custody. The above writ petition is filed fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ792
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioners herein have been convicted for offences including the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They submitted applications through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, praying for release on licence under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, for short, the Act' and Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964, for short, the 'Rules'. The State Government rejected the applications on consideration of the views of the Probation Board which acted on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The respective orders of the State Government are under challenge in these cases.2. In Misc. Civil Case No. 47 of 1988, State v. Chandersingh and Anr. of the Indore Bench of the High Court, the Court took the view that an application for release has to be disposed of on consideration of the applicants' antecedents only prior t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995CriLJ383
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioners herein have been convicted for offences including the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They submitted applications through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, praying for release on licence under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, for short, the 'Act' and Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964, for short, the 'Rules'. The State Government rejected the applications on consideration of the views of the Probation Board which acted on the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The respective orders of the State Government are under challenge in these cases.2. In Misc. Civil Case No. 47 of 1988 (State v. Chandersingh) of the Indore Bench of the High Court, the Court took the view that an application for release has to be disposed of on consideration of the applicants' antecedents only prior to the commission of the cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2209
N.P. Singh, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of State of West Bengal and its authorities for setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 20th January, 1992 passed by a learned Judge of this court on a writ application filed on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent.2. When the application filed on behalf of the appellant-State for staying operation of the judgment and order under appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for both the parties suggested that the appeal itself be treated as on day's list for hearing and be disposed of along with the application for interim relief. Accordingly, the appeal taken up for hearing along with the application for interim relief.3. The writ petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was an accused for having committed a pre-planned brutal murder of his daughter-in-law one Debjani. After trial he was sentenced to death which was confirmed by this High Court as well as by the Supreme Court on appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC855; 1983CriLJ1345; 1983(1)SCALE425; (1983)2SCC454; [1983]2SCR770
1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner Naib Singh is challenging his continued detention in jail and is seeking an order in the nature of habeas corpus claiming that he has justly served more than the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under law and should, therefore, be released.2. The petitioner was originally sentenced to death on 18.1.1969 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, for committing an offence of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Later, on a mercy petition preferred by him, his death sentence was commuted by the Governor of Punjab to imprisonment for life, which he has been undergoing in the Central Jail at Bhatinda. Excluding the period spent by him as an under-trial prisoner (in respect whereof no life-convict is entitled to the benefit of a set-off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. 1973 as interpreted by this Court in Kartar Singh's : 1982CriLJ1772 case), the petitioner appears to have undergone a total imprisonment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2030
Gangadhara Rao, J.1. The question for our consideration in this writ petition is whether the detention of an adolescent offender in a Borstal School is a sentence within the meaning of Clause (a) of Paragraph 2 of G. O. Ms. No. 557 Home (Prison-C) Department dated 30th October, 1980, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The facts are not in dispute, Sri V. Gopal Reddy, an adolescent offender along with three others were convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Sessions Case No. 59/1974 on 30th December, 1974. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 12th March, 1976. From 30th December, 1974 till 26th August, 1976, he was lodged in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad. He was transferred to the Borstal School, Visakhapatnam, as per the Government order dated 25th August, 1976 since he was an adolescent offender within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Borstal Schools Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC184
1. Mr Ganesh on behalf of the petitioner has applied for certain directions in this matter in order to be able to file his submissions on the various issues which have been formulated for decision by this Court by its Order dated September 14, 1981. 2. The first item on which Mr Ganesh seeks direction from us is one on which we do not think it necessary to direct the respondent to give us any information, but we think that it would be appropriate if the Secretary of the District Legal Aid Committee of Tirunelveli is directed to visit the jail at Palayamkotti and meet the petitioner to obtain from him the necessary information in regard to the various matters set out in Item (1) and transmit such information to this Court within three weeks from today. The respondent will provide the necessary facilities to the Secretary to visit the jail and to interview the petitioner for this purpose. 3. The other item on which we propose to give directions is Item (4) which relates to the report of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1969Ori268; 35(1969)CLT411; 1969CriLJ1414
ORDERS.K. Ray, J. 1. This is an application seeking to review the operative part of the judgment of this Court dated 23th November, 1967, passed in Cr. Revn. No. 298/66. The operative part of the judgment contained in its last paragraph runs as follows: 'Learned counsel for the petitioner however, states that the accused has already undergone a part of the substantive sentence and that he had had sufficient harassment since the prosecution was launched. While, therefore, maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420, I. P. C., I would reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone, and maintain the sentence of fine, and with this modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed.'2. Cr. Revision No. 298/66 was filed by the accused-opposite-party against the confirming order of conviction and sentence dated 28-4-66 passed by Sri S.K. Patra, Sessions Judge of Puri by which he was convicted under Section 420 IPC., and sentenced to R. I. for two mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP252; 1969MPLJ539
Sen, J. 1. After hearing the parties on merits, we passed an order on 27th January, 1969, to the following effect:'Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that this petition for grant of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must be allowed. We hereby set aside the order issued by the Secretary to Government of Madhya Pra-desh, Jail Department, bearing No. 1090/ 342/III-Jail, dated Bhopal, the 3rd May 1967, cancelling the petitioner's conditional release on a licence issued under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954. We accordingly direct the State of Madhya Pradesh, and, in particular, the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Jabalpur, where the petitioner is being detained, to serve him with the original licence of conditional release already issued by the State Govern-ment in Form 'D' under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964, and to afford him every facility to comply with th...
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!