NDLI: Chandrakant Patil Vs. State Through Cbi

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1973 : Section 377 (3) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act Criminal Law : Criminal Procedure Code 1987 : Section 19
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Criminal Law :Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 377 (3).Sentence-Appeal against-By Government-Acquittal-Right of accused to plead/or-Supreme Court already confirmed conviction of accused under S.5 TADA after considering in detail contentions raised by accused and also dismissed review petition-Held :, Right to plead for acquittal confined only to appeals presented by Government to High Court-Hence, no further opportunity can be afforded to the accused in appeal before Supreme Court under S.19 of TADA to plead for acquittal by reviewing the findings already made. Terrorist and Disruptive Acti".ities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : Section 19-Sentence-Enhancement of-By Supreme Court in appeal- No appeal presented by Government specifically for enhancement-No revision powers available to Supreme Court as are conferred on High Court and Court of Sessions-Held : Even under these circumstances Supreme Court has power under Art. 142 r/w S.19 to enhance the sentence for doing complete justice in the matter when in the circumstances of the case ii appears to be too inadequate. Section 5--Sentence-Adequacy of-Accused caught red handed while making nocturnal movements towards some targeted destination in densely crowded city with highly lethal and quickly explosive articles-Minimum sentence of 5 years 'RI imposed on accused-Held : Such minimum sentence inadequate-Maximum sentence of file imprisonment also on higher side which should be reserved for gravest instances of offences-In the circumstances of the case, 10 years' RI is adequate. Constitution of India, 1950 :Article 142--Supreme Court's power-Scope-Held : Not limited or restricted by any statutory enactment-However, it should be exercised sparingly. Article 136-Plenary power of Supreme Court-Scope of-Held : Not restricted by appellate provisions enumerated under Cr.P.C. or any other statute.Sentencing : Maximum sentence-Held : should be reserved for gravest instances of offences likely to occur as a principle of common sense. The appellants-accused were caught red handed while making nocturnal movements towards some targeted destination in the densely crowded city with highly lethal and quickly explosive articles. The appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.This Court confirmed the finding regarding the conviction under Section 5 of TADA after considering in detail the contentions raised by the accused and also dismissed the review petition. While confirming the conviction this Court felt that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years awarded by the trial court to each of the accused was inadequate. Hence this Court issued notice to the appellants-accused on the proposal to enhance the sentence. On behalf of the accused it was contended that the accused had a right to plead for his acquittal as envisaged under Section 377(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; that this Court had no power to enhance the sentence in the absence of an appeal by the Government presented specifically for that purpose more so because this Court had no revisional powers which the High Court and the Court of Sessions were conferred with by the Code; and that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution should be sparingly used and that too in exceptional cases.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas
Neutral Citation	1998 INSC 50
Petitioner	Chandrakant Patil
Respondent	State Through Cbi
SCR	[1998] 1 S.C.R. 447
Judgement Date	1998-02-02
Case Number	438

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Chandrakant Patil Vs. State Through Cbi

Please Log-in to view this content

Hardeep Singh Sohal Etc Vs. State of Punjab Through Cbi

Mohd. Maqbool Tantray Vs. State of J & K

State Through Cbi, Delhi Vs. Gian Singh

Gurmail Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Cbi Vs. Mustafa Ahmed Dossa

Periyasami S/o. Duraisami Novanagar Vs. State Represented Through The Inspector of Police, 'q' Branch Cid, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu

S.n. Thapa Vs. State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Chandra Vs. Cbi

Shaheen Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and Others

Chandrakant Patil Vs. State Through Cbi

Chandrakant Patil Vs. State Through Cbi

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Hardeep Singh Sohal Etc Vs. State of Punjab Through Cbi

Mohd. Maqbool Tantray Vs. State of J & K

State Through Cbi, Delhi Vs. Gian Singh

Gurmail Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Cbi Vs. Mustafa Ahmed Dossa

Periyasami S/o. Duraisami Novanagar Vs. State Represented Through The Inspector of Police, 'q' Branch Cid, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu

S.n. Thapa Vs. State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Chandra Vs. Cbi

Shaheen Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and Others

Chandrakant Patil Vs. State Through Cbi