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

1996 Supreme(SC) 2000

A. M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Additional D. I. G. Of Police, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
P. R. K. Mohan – Respondent


ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to enter an appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The only ground on which the decision of the learned Single Judge came to be altered by the Division Bench is based on the interpretation of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which reads as under :

"12. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law :"

The Division Bench of the High Court held that this provision has overriding effect over the provisions of any other law and, therefore, the order of dismissal was liable to be quashed on that ground alone.

3. The impugned order was passed on the basis of Section 12 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 which inter alia provided that every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him, as well as of any medals and decor


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