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

1995 Supreme(Guj) 262

K.J.VAIDYA
V. K. BHATT,provident FUND INSPECTOR – Appellant
Versus
ARYODAYA ginning MILLS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.A.SHELAT, J.D.AJMERA

K. J. VAIDYA, J.

( 1 ). Once again the very same squalid, shocking, disgraceful and disgusting old tale of woe and pity, of fraud and the dereliction of duty, the patent modus operandi being that of the illicit "plea-bargaining" between the learned magistrate and the accused, resulting into the gross miscarriage of justice. . Once again the law and justice appears to have been perversely made to divorce against their will in the matter of statutory minimum sentence, in total defiance on the one hand of the Law on the point of minimum sentence being crystal clear, and on the other hand of the Courts, i. e. , High Courts and the Supreme Court, repeatedly deprecating this unholy practice of "plea-bargaining", the same is not given up. If despite the High Court and the Apex Court of the country deprecating the said practice of illicit "plea-bargaining" as illegal and unconstitutional in unmistakable terms which is even otherwise first and elementary thing, duty, principle to be known, scrupulously taken care of and religiously observed by any Magistrate worth the name, and yet if the same shamefully is not to be paid any heed to mend, amend or improve its ways and instead obstinately th












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