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

1994 Supreme(J&K) 114

B.A.KHAN
Mukhtiar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Surinder Kour
Advocate For Respondent: R.C. Gandhi

1. Petitioner was first sentenced to 6 years RI under Section 307/34 R.P.C. in file No. 59 of 1976 by Add. Sessions Judge, Jammu. He was later sentenced to 6 months RI for the same offences in a separate trial by the learned Session Judge, Jammu. He filed Crl. first Appeal Nos. 52/80 and 17/81. In the first appeal his sentence of 6 months RI was upheld but in the second it was reduced to 3 years. It was not, however, provided whether the sentences would run concurrently. He has now filed this petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C., and prays for the two sentences to be ordered to run concurrently and not consecutively.

2. It is the common ground that the petitioner had not asked for this either before the trial Court or the Appellate Court. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether he could do so now by approaching this court in an independent proceedings and purportedly under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

3. According to Mr. Gandhi he was disabled to do so for having failed to ask for it before the trial or the appellate Courts. The grounds taken by him also would not justify any grant of relief to him. The Court was also incompetent to come to his rescue having become functus officio after it



















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