Skip to main content

Period Served As Undertrial In One Case Can’t Be Set Off Against Another Sentence

The Bombay High Court in Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan vs  The Superintendent, Central Jail has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mulund blast convict Saquib Nachan.

A bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Anuja Prabhudessai was hearing Nachan’s petition wherein he sought the period of detention undergone by him in the MCOC case to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment in POTA case.

In the case of Atul Manubhai Parekh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, the apex court had held that under Section 428 of CrPC, the question of merger of sentence does not arise and the period of set-off is in respect of each separate case and the detention undergone by accused during investigation or trial of such case.

The court then referred to the case of Sanjay Shriram Gondchar vs State of Maharashtra, wherein another division bench of the high court held that petitioner is not entitled to get period of undertrial imprisonment suffered in one case for set off against the sentence to be undergone in another case.

Dismissing the petition, the court held that the period undergone by Nachan in MCOC case cannot be set off as against sentence imposed in POTA case.

 Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/period-served-undertrial-one-case-cant-set-off-sentence-served-another-case-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more