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

2001 Supreme(Cal) 248

DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA
JISHU JAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DEBASIS ROY, H.K.DEY, S.MOITRA

D. P. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against an order dated 9. 4. 2001 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Sessions trial No. 3 (3)/2001 which corresponds to Sessions Case No. 40 (2) / 2001 arising out of Behala P. S. Case No. 596 (12)/2000 dated 26. 12. 2000 under sections 326 / 307 / 459 IPC.

( 2 ) THE present petitioner was put up on trial before the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge to meet a charge under sections 326 / 307 / IPC.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that since section 307 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, who is not empowered to inflict such punishment, is not competent to try such offence. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of provision of section 28 (3) Cr. PC an Assistant Sessions Judge may pass the sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding 10 years. Since the offence under section 307 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, according to the learned advocate of the petitioner, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge is not competent to








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