Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/05/whether-issue-decided-by-larger-bench.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:20:58+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether issue decided by larger bench is binding as precedent even though it is not referred by concerned bench?
Whether issue decided by larger bench is binding as precedent even though it is not referred by concerned bench?
enhancement was not referred to the Constitution Bench.
aspect. The said submission is noted only to be rejected.
paragraph 2.2 have been specifically posed in this manner.
position and we are bound by it.
Vikas Yadav V State of U.P.
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
years; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.
months. All sentences were directed to be concurrent.
and (o) what ought to be the fitnes in the present case.
at hand to which we will advert to at a later stage.
paras 741 to 745 above.
within a period of six months from today.
to FIR No.192/2002 P.S. Ghaziabad.
regard to FIR No.192/2002 P.S.
nominal rolls shall be accordingly corrected by the jail authorities.
months of the passing of the present order.
(X) In the event of the failure to deposit the amount as directed at Sr.
such fixed term sentences and other facets relating to it.
sentences in the facts of the case.
contrary to Sections 28 and 386 CrPC and Section 302 IPC.
been considered by the majority in Union of India v. V.
as has been held in Sahib Hussain alias Sahib Jan v.
and Gurvail Singh alias Gala v.
trial court as has been clearly held in Jagat Bahadur v.
Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam & Ors.
which demonstrates total non-application of mind.
judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in V.
Defending the imposition of sentence in the case, Mr.
therein, the same can be rectified by this Court.
punishment deserves to be imposed.
except according to the procedure established by law.
established by law and hence, impermissible.
17. We shall first see how the Constitution Bench in V.
Seventh Schedule for grant of remission?
Governments under Section 432(7) of the Code?
to the ratio of this Court in Godse or Maru Ram.
would be no scope to count the earned remission.
others v. State of Punjab21, and Jagmohan Singh v.
instead of sentence of death.
and also the sanction of law.
empowers the court to impose sentence authorized by law.
others29 and Zahid Hussein and others v. State of W.B.
provided under Articles 71 and 161 of the Constitution.
statute and conferment of power under the Constitution.
The same has been explained in Maru Ram (supra) and V.
review. In Epuru Sudhakar and another v. Govt. of A.P.
and others33 , in the concurring opinion, S.H. Kapadia, J.
would amount to setting a dangerous precedent.
requirement of “Government according to law”.
dispute over the maximum, that is, death sentence.
conclusion has been reached by the majority in V.
Sriharan (supra) and other cases, Mr. Lalit and Mr.
Bench in view of the unusual and unprecedented situation.
case could have been granted by this court itself.
established. On the first count, the election was set aside.
as visualized in Swamy Shraddananda (2) (supra).
Bench is not a seemly appreciation of Section 433-A CrPC.
legislature to grant remission after expiry of certain period.
The court could have imposed the death sentence.
by the learned senior counsel for the appellants.
the Court took note of the decision in Shri Bhagwan v.
provisions of the Prisons Act, Jail Manual, etc.
thereunder except in exceptional circumstances.
Shraddananda (2) (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh. v.
interfere with the sovereign power of the State.
i.e. no such observations should have been made.
provided in the Criminal Procedure Code.
consisting of two Hon’ble Judges.
offence found proved to have been committed.
Court and not by any other Court in this country.
of what has been stated by the Constitution Bench.
said to be correcting an error of the trying court?
appellants would contend that the principles stated in A.R.
Fibre Boards Private Limited, Bangalore v.
the two-Judge Bench referred to Mamleshwar Prasad v.
Kanhaiya Lal46 and State of U.P. and another v.
M.A. Tulloch and Co. (supra) and not in Rayala Corpn.
The majority concurred with the said opinion.
justitiae and passed the order reproduced hereinabove.
a natural corollary the principle of remission does not arise.
no hesitation in holding that the principles stated in A.R.
judgment in V. Sriharan (supra) is a binding precedent.
that the sentence imposed is not disproportionate.
recovered from the burnt down factory premises of M/s.
lifetime alliance with a member of another caste.
kept out of court for over three and a half years.
has suffered at his demise and thereafter.
inter-religious marriage of their own free will.
63. In Maya Kaur Baldevsingh Sardar and another v.
nothing but barbaric and shameful murder.
and ought to stay till eternity.
mean sustaining one’s honour at the cost of another.
mental cruelty in the name of his self-assumed honour.
clearly exposes the depraved state of mind.
he committed the present crime.
the Court upheld the validity of Section 433-A.
counsel appearing for the appellant.
sentence in respect of Sukhdev.
and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside.
the imposition of fixed terms sentence is justified.
before the commencement of his life sentence.
that the term sentence would run concurrently.
sentence and directed all the sentences to be concurrent.
201/34 IPC and, thereafter, suffer the fixed term sentences.
sentence imposed for other offences by the High Court.
concept of victim compensation cannot be marginalized.
clause. We are not inclined to interfere with the same.
to say, all other sentences and directions will remain intact.

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 V.

 V.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 V.

 v. 
 V.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 V. 
 v.