//
archives

Madan Lal

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Section 31 of Cr.P.C. – the sentences imposed were ordered to run consecutively – not run concurrently on ground of previous criminal history – offences done in single transaction – Confirmed by High court – Apex court held No = Manoj @ Panu … Appellant vs. State of Haryana … Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41057

Section 31 of Cr.P.C. – the sentences imposed were ordered to  run consecutively – not run  concurrently on ground of previous criminal history – offences done in single transaction – Confirmed by High court – Apex court held No =   Whether the sentences imposed were ordered to  run consecutively on the ground that the accused Manoj was  a … Continue reading

SEC. 304 B , 306 AND 498 A I.P.C. – When wife stated that she committed suicide as she was fed up with the acts of husband with out disclosing the activities – it can not be considered as an offence under sec. 304 B as there is no allegation that soon before her committing suicide the husband harassed her dowry etc., Apex court punished the husband under sec.306 and 498 A I.P.C. = Rajeev Kumar …… Appellant Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40946

SEC. 304 B , 306 AND 498 A I.P.C. – When wife stated that she committed suicide as she     was fed up with the acts of husband with out disclosing the activities – it can not be considered as an offence under sec. 304 B as there is no allegation that soon before her committing suicide the … Continue reading

Negotiable Instruments Act – Punishments -substantive punishments- concurrently – default of fine punishment- consecutively = whether the High Court was right in declining the prayer made by the appellant for a direction in terms of Section 427 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the sentences awarded to the appellant in connection with the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against him to run concurrently. = Applying the principle of single transaction referred to above to the above fact situations we are of the view that each one of the loan transactions/financial arrangements was a separate and distinct transaction between the complainant on the one hand and the borrowing company/appellant on the other. If different cheques which are subsequently dishonoured on presentation, are issued by the borrowing company acting through the appellant, the same could be said to be arising out of a single loan transaction so as to justify a direction for concurrent running of the sentences awarded in relation to dishonour of cheques relevant to each such transaction. That being so, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant in each case relevant to the transactions with each company referred to above ought to run concurrently. We, however, see no reason to extend that concession to transactions in which the borrowing company is different no matter the appellant before us is the promoter/Director of the said other companies also. – We make it clear that the direction regarding concurrent running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive sentence only. The sentence which the appellant has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction. We do so because the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. do not, in our opinion, permit a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.= In the result, these appeals succeed but only in part and to the following extent: 1) Substantive sentences awarded to the appellant by the Courts of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hissar and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, in Criminal complaint cases No.269-II/97; No.549-II/97; No.393-II/97; No.371-II/97; No.372-II/97; No.373-II/97; No.877-II/96; No.880-II/96; No.878-II/96; No.876-II/96; No.879-II/96; No.485-II/96 relevant to the loan transaction between Haryana Financial Corporation and Arawali Tubes shall run concurrently. 2) Substantive sentences awarded to the appellant by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hissar in Criminal complaint cases No.156-II/1997 and No.396-II/1998 between Haryana Financial Corporation and Arawali Alloys relevant to the transactions shall also run concurrently; 3) Substantive sentences inter se by the Court of Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Hissar in the above two categories and that awarded in complaint case No.331-II/97 shall run consecutively in terms of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4) No costs.

   published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40532 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.836-851 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.10023-10038 of 2011 V.K. Bansal …Appellants Versus State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. …Respondents J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,166 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com