Supreme Court of India
BHAGWAN RAMA SHINDE GOSAI AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- 12 May 1999
- Judges listed
- K.T. THOMAS, M.B. SHAH
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1999] 3 S.C.R. 545 · 1999 INSC 246
- Also cited as
- (1999) 4 SCC 421
- AIR 1999 SC 1859
- (1999) SCC(CRI) 553
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
- AASIF @ PASHA versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- OMPRAKASH SAHNI versus JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.
- ANGANA & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
- DADU @ TULSIDAS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
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.
Leave granted.
p. 545, margin G
This is a case where appellants have been convicted by the trial court of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for IO years. They filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat and moved for suspension of sentence, but that was not allowed. At a later stage they again moved for suspension of sentence and that too was dismissed by the impugned order. Unfortunately, when they made a motion for having their appeal expedited that also was declined by the High Court on the premise that the High Court is having older appeals on the board.
pp. 545–546, margin G
When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can b.e considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a cilfferent approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.
p. 546, margin B
In this case as the High Court was not inclined to hear the appeal expeditiously we are of the view that the sentence passed on appellants can be suspended on some stringent conditions. We, therefore, suspend the sentence and direct the appellants to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad. We direct the appellants to report to Kapadwang Police Station on all Mondays and Thursdays between 4.00 P.M. and 6.00 P.M. until disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court.
p. 546, margin D
This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.
p. 546, margin F