<!-- Go to www.addthis.com/dashboard to customize your tools -->
<script src="//s7.addthis.com/js/300/addthis_widget.js#pubid=ra-5db34876a42bb431" type="text/javascript"></script>
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.29, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138* - Dishonour of cheque - Power of Magistrate to impose sentence of fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Accused convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Act - Magistrate can only impose a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs.5000/- - In view of provisions of Section 29 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 imposition of penalty or fine of Rs.1,50,000/- by Magistrate not proper.2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 207 (Cal.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.29(2), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138, 143* - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Magistrate first class can impose sentence exceeding Rs.5000/- in view of new provision of Section 143 inserted with effect from 6.2.2003.
2006(3) Criminal Court Cases 1040 (Karnataka)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.29(2), 143, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138* - Cheque dishonoured - Sentence of fine of Rs.1,25,000/- - Power of Magistrate to impose fine Rs.5,000/- only - Sentence of fine modified and fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed and in default of payment of fine petitioner to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
2006(3) Criminal Court Cases 559 (Rajasthan)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.30, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.63 to 70* - Imprisonment in default of payment of fine - It is not a sentence but is a penalty - Sentence is something which an offender must undergo unless it is set aside or remitted - Court while imposing imprisonment in default of payment of fine should keep in view the nature of offence, circumstances under which it was committed, the position of the offender and other relevant considerations before ordering he offender to suffer imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 810 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.30, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss.8, 18* - Reduction in period of imprisonment of three years in default of payment of fine of Rs.one lakh - Imprisonment reduced to six months keeping in view that accused is a very poor man, he is merely a carrier, he has to maintain his family, it was his first offence and because of his poverty, he could not pay the heavy amount of fine and if he is ordered to remain in jail even after the period of substantive sentence is over only because of his inability to pay fine, serious prejudice will be caused not only to him, but also to his family members who are innocent.
2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 810 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.30* - Imprisonment in default of payment of fine - Court can award imprisonment in default of payment of fine upto one-fourth term of imprisonment which Court is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence.
2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 810 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.364, 365, 120B, 201* - Accused convicted u/ss 364, 365, 120B, 211 and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment - Aggregate of all the sentences 20 years - Accused could be sentenced to 14 years imprisonment under Proviso to S.31 Cr.P.C. - Sentence reduced to 14 years.
2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 1022 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Concurrent running of sentences - Multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life imprisonment - Life imprisonment so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively - Such sentences would however, be super imposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by competent authority in one does not ipso facto result in remission of sentence awarded to prisoner for the other.
2016(Suppl.) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Concurrent sentences - Discretion vests in Court to direct that punishment shall run concurrently when accused is convicted at one trial for two or more offences - Order of concurrently running of sentences is not required to be mentioned - If Court does not direct that sentences shall run concurrently then sentences shall run consecutively by operation of S.31 Cr.P.C.
2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 032 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Concurrent sentences - When prosecution is based on single transaction where it constitute two or more offences sentences are to run concurrently - Imposing separate sentences when acts constituting different offences form part of single transaction is not justified.
2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 032 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Consecutive running of sentences - S.31(1) Cr.P.C., would permit consecutive running of sentences only if such sentences do not happen to be life sentences - Imposition of two life sentences should run concurrently.
2016(Suppl.) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Consecutive running of sentences - Term sentence and life imprisonment may be ordered to run consecutively if term sentence has to start first - Converse of the same may not be true for if Court directs life sentence to start first it would necessarily imply that term sentence would run concurrently.
2016(Suppl.) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Quantum of sentence - May be legally passed when there is : (a) one trial; (b) the accused is convicted of two or more offences - When a person is convicted for two or more offences at one trial Court may exercise its discretion in directing that sentence for each offence may either run consecutively or concurrently subject to provisions of S.71 IPC - But aggregate must not exceed the limit fixed in S.31(2)(a)(b) Cr.P.C. i.e. (i) it should not exceed 14 years and (ii) it cannot exceed twice the maximum imprisonment awardable by the sentencing court for a single offence.
2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 032 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Scope - No Court is empowered to pass sentence aggregated of which shall exceed twice the quantum of punishment which Court is competent to inflict for single offence.
2012(4) Criminal Court Cases 057 (Allahabad) (DB)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - Personal exemption - Can be granted only in summons case i.e. in a case in which imprisonment that can be imposed does not exceed two years.
2009(3) Criminal Court Cases 065 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.31* - Two essential ingredients of S.31 Cr.P.C., are. : (i) a person is convicted at one trial; (ii) trial is for two or more offences.
2016(Suppl.) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.)
*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.31, 362* - Accused convicted in the same trial for different offences under IPC - No order that sentence shall run concurrently - Appeal against dismissed - Revision also dismissed by High Court - Prayer not made in appellate Court and in Revision for making sentence awarded to run concurrently - Petition u/s 482 r/w S.31 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the sentence awarded by the Magistrate may be made to run concurrently as the total sentence awarded would be more than 14 years which would be contrary to Section 31(2)(b) of CrPC - Application disallowed - Held, though order of Magistrate awarding sentence totaling more than 14 years was violative of S.31(2)(a) Cr.P.C. but once criminal revision against sentence has attained finality, then High Court has no jurisdiction u/s 482 r/w S.31 of the Code or u/s 362 of the Cr.P.C. to review its order.
2011(1) Criminal Court Cases 0625 (P&H)
0 comments:
Post a Comment