Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HARBANS SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided
25 July 1984
Judges listed
D.A. DESAI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 214 · 1984 INSC 129
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

DrsAI, J. We are not inclined to grant special leave, but we make this short speaking order in order to keep the record straight that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not tentamount to affirmance of the order of the learned Judge of the High Court ,who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh SlNGl( l' J .~JAB i. ) 21.5

pp. 214–215, margin G

:coisai, scm'til\:e imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence already undergone which in the facts and circumstanc'es of the case was wholly impermissible.

p. 215

In Meet Singil v. State of Punjab,( this Court pointed out that Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give less than the minimum for any special reasons to be recorded in writing. This Court examined what constitute special reasons for the purpose of Sec.5(2) and pointed out that the reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in reducing the sentence to the sentence undergone could not be special reasons. .Therefore, in our view, the learned Judge was entirely in errnr in showing a misplaced sympathy unsustainable in law. With these observations wo:: reject the special leave p ~tition . N.V.K. Petition dismissed.

p. 215

(I) [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1152

p. 215, margin D