SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 209

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Karam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The admitted facts are that petitioner and others were charged for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and also under Sections 323 and 324. The Sessions Court convicted the petitioner and others but on appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 34 and also under Section 324 but maintained the conviction under Section 323 and released him on probation. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for reinstatement. The authorities, since have had already dismissed the petitioner declined to reinstate him into the service, in view of the provisions of Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. He challenged its correctness thereof. The Division Bench of the High Court in LPA No. 657/95 by order dated 8.8.1995 dismissed the same. Thus this special leave petition.

2. It is contended by Shri Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and he having been released on probation for offence under Section 323, it cannot be said that there is any impediment in his way





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top