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

1964 Supreme(SC) 97

MOHAMED MIRZA
Mullapudi Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Adavi Ramarao, K. Nagaraja Rao and A.V. Radhakrishna, for Petitioner;
Public Prosecutor, for the State.

ORDER

This petition is filed by Mr. Adavi, Rama Rao, the learned Counsel praying that this Court may order the sentence passed in S. C. No. 2/61 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudivada to run concurrently with that passed in S C. No. 26/57 on die file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru. The learned Counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor relied on In re, Nachimuthu, AIR 1958 Mad 452 and submits that the High Court has no power to review the orders passed by the trial Court or appellate Court and the order to make the sentences ran concurrently cannot be passed when there is no appeal pending before the High Court. But in my opinion, the High Court has wide powers under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code and it can always consider the propriety of a sentence recorded by the lower Courts and in case it feels that the sentence is inappropriate it can always correct it. The power to order the sentences to run concurrently is provided under Section 397(1) Criminal Procedure Code, and the Court can always consider the feasibility of ordering the sentences to rim concurrently. Thus the High Court cannot be in a worse position than the trial Court or the lower Appell



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