Back
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Geeta Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Gupta as well as Ms. Saumya Chaturvedi for the appellant; Km. Meena, learned AGA for the State and Sri Faiz Ahmad and Sri Yashdeep Rastogi holding brief of Sri Imran Ullah on behalf of PW-2 and perused the records of the present criminal appeal.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.10.2018, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Special Trial No. 1848 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2017, under Sections 370(3), 370(5), 370(7), 363, 188, 120B IPC; 9 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 16 /17 POCSO Act, Police Station - Etmaddaula, District Agra; whereby the appellant Smt. Geeta Rakesh has been convicted under Section 370(3) IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on its failure to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of six months; under Section 370(5) IPC sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on its failure to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one year; under Section 370(7) I
The interpretation of Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the POCSO Act was crucial in determining the liability of the accused for failure to report offences, leading to their discharge for certain charges.
Commission of a jail offence is no legal ground to deny premature release to a convict, especially when the person has been punished for such a misconduct.
State Government lacks authority to suspend sentences and grant parole to convicted prisoners during active appeal proceedings, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory regulations.
Allegations of trafficking must meet statutory definitions; insufficient evidence or lack of necessary sanction renders related charges unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail must be based on relevant considerations, and the heinous nature of the offence, statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act,....
Point of Law : Detenue is already in custody in some other case, at time when the preventive detention order was passed, and should also satisfy the other parameter
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
