Legal Reference Library

Supreme Court, in State of M.P. vs. Udaibhan, has observed that undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re-assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh was hearing the Appeal filed by the State against the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein it reduced the sentence imposed by Trial Court for imprisonment which was R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as well as Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC to a period already undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months only. The Bench observed that there was hardly any mitigating circumstance to take such a lenient view as has been done by the High Court. The Court further observed that it is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to ensure justice to both the parties and th...

Supreme Court Today delivered a landmark Judgment holding that Chairman, Directors and Officers of Global Trust Bank Ltd. (a private bank before its amalgamation with the Oriental Bank of Commerce), can be said to be public servants for the purposes of their prosecution in respect of offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Two Judge Bench held that by virtue of the provisions of Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prosecutions launched against the accused officials are maintainable in law. As per Clause (viii) contained in Section 2(c) of P.C. Act, 1988 a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty, is a public servant. In this Case the Court has examined as to whether the chairman/managing director or executive director of a private bank operating under licence issued by RBI under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, held/holds an office and performed /performs public duty so as to attract the def...