Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the accused Respondent had installed a transformer in his field and left the electric wires naked which was a negligent act. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 117 the Tribunal is made to record a finding on the corrupt practices alleged. The deceased Sushila Bai died on account of the said naked wire which had high voltage and was not visible in the dark. It is the duty of the Court to award just sentence to a convict against whom charge is proved.
[1] The grievance in this appeal is that though the application of the law laid down by this court in State of Orissa v. It is also the duty of the court to duly consider the aspect of rehabilitating the victim. Suppose an election is sought to be avoided on the grounds, that the returned candidate was not qualified or that one of the nomination papers had been improperly rejected and also on the ground of corrupt practices having been committed by the returned candidate, all of which are good grounds for setting aside an election under s.
Arora that apart from the young age of the respondent at the time of occurrence the aforesaid aspect would constitute the mitigating factor. In such a case too, if the construction put upon s. 99 by the learned counsel for the appellant is right, the Tribunal cannot allow the petition on any one of the first two grounds, which it could have done after a very summary trial, but must proceed to decide the charges of corrupt practice alleged. Unfortunately, these factors are missing in the impugned order.
64 of 1956, arising check out this site of the judgment and order dated May 1, 1956, of the said High Court in Writ Petition No. relevant web page (official source) Sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and the society. In the course of the argument, he said also referred to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (called ‘HSN’) Explanatory Notes to which we shall advert a little later While every mitigating or aggravating circumstance may be given due weight, mechanical reduction of sentence to the period already undergone cannot be appreciated.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 14, 1956, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. If it was in the interest of the public that corruption should be eradicated, it was equally in the interest of the public that honest public view site… (official source) servants should be able to 208 discharge their duties free from false, frivolous and malicious accusations. nIt is submitted by Ms. 5A and 6 introduced the following two safeguards: (1) no police officer below the rank-(a) in the presidency towns of Madras and Calcutta, of an assistant commissioner of police, (b) in the presidency town of Bombay, of sneak a peek at this web-site superintendent of police and (c) elsewhere, of a deputy superintendent of police, shall investigate any offence punishable under s.
To achieve this object, ss. No cogent reason has been assigned for imposing only 10 days sentence when an innocent life has been lost. It is apt to note Discover More Here (he has a good point) that in that case the deceased had received injuries due to shock of electric current. The High Court had reduced the sentence to 10 days. 90(3) where it contains charges of corrupt practices having been committed, as the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that construction must have effect however senseless it may appear.
On the other hand, if it is not senseless in the one case it is not senseless in the other Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has raised a number of arguments before us. This can be said to be equally senseless as where having dismissed a petition for non-compliance with s. The court took note of the submission of the learned counsel for the State and proceeded to opine as follows:- “7. In Mehtaab’s case a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the case under Section 304A IPC wherein the respondent was convicted under Section 304A IPC and 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively.
Even if liberal view on sentence of imprisonment was to be taken, the High Court ought to have enhanced the sentence of fine and awarded a reasonable compensation as a condition for reduction of sentence The offence having been fully proved by the evidence on record, the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence to 10 days which was not just and fair. n525 point raised under s. We find force in the submission. TISCO therefore claims entitlement to refund on the excess royalty paid by it for click this link period.
[2] (hereafter SAIL) has been accepted by the High Court, namely, that royalty is chargeable [in accordance with Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the MMDR Act)] on the quantity of coal extracted at the pit-head, yet the refund of excess royalty paid by TISCO for the period from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision in SAIL) till June 2002 [about Rs. According to him, a reference to the Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, when properly Read the Full Document, would necessarily yield the result that the said goods would fall only under Entry 49.
303/2004 filed by TISCO against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002 passed by the Jharkhand High Court. In the set of appeals pertaining to TISCO, the first appeal is Civil Appeal No.