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

1967 Supreme(MP) 74

R.J.BHAVE, N.M.GOLVALKER, S.P.BHARGAVA
SIBBU MUNNILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.P.SEN, A.Usmani

BHAVE, J.

( 1 ) THE following question has been referred to us for our decision: "whether the expression 'transportation' in Section 4 (a) of the reformatory Schools Act meant 'transportation for life' and, therefore, now means 'imprisonment for life'?" the question has been referred because, according to the learned Single Judge (Shiv Dayal J.), there is a conflict between the two decisions, namely, Rama v. Emperor, (1908) 4 Nag LR 180 and Daljit Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Nag 274 on the one hand, and Gangaram v. State of M. P. , AIR 1965 Madh Pra 122.

( 2 ) THE appellant in this case has been convicted of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The punishment prescribed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also fine. The appellant is aged 18 years. One of the questions which came before the learned Single Judge while deciding the appeal was whether in such a case the provisions of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 could be applied. That depends on the interpretation of Section 4 (a) of the re






















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