True Trials

Section 389 CrPC: No Hard & Fast Rule That Convict Must Undergo Particular Period Of Sentence Before Seeking Its Suspension

The Supreme Court of India has recently held that there is no hard and fast rule that a convict must undergo a particular period of sentence before seeking its suspension under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court explained that the decision of whether or not to suspend a sentence is a discretionary one, and that the court must consider all of the relevant factors in each case. The Court also observed that the earlier practice of requiring a convict to undergo 50% of the sentence before seeking its suspension has been relaxed, and that the court can now suspend a sentence even if the convict has not undergone 50% of the sentence.

This is a significant ruling, as it gives courts more flexibility in deciding whether or not to suspend a sentence. It also means that convicts will have a better chance of having their sentences suspended, even if they have not undergone 50% of the sentence.

Section 389 of the CrPC empowers the court to suspend the ex*****on of a sentence. This means that the convict will not have to serve the sentence until the court decides otherwise.

The Supreme Court has held that there is no hard and fast rule that a convict must undergo a particular period of sentence before seeking its suspension. The Court has also held that the earlier practice of requiring a convict to undergo 50% of the sentence before seeking its suspension has been relaxed.

This means that courts now have more flexibility in deciding whether or not to suspend a sentence. It also means that convicts will have a better chance of having their sentences suspended, even if they have not undergone 50% of the sentence.

Hostile witness: Court's duty to ensure witnesses are not under threat: Supreme Court cancels accused's bail after witnesses turn hostile, orders fresh examination

The Supreme Court of India has recently cancelled the bail of an accused after witnesses turned hostile, citing the court's duty to ensure that witnesses are not under threat.

The Court observed that it is becoming common for witnesses to turn hostile in criminal cases, and that this is a serious threat to the administration of justice. The Court also held that the court has a duty to ensure that witnesses are not under threat, and that if the court finds that a witness is being threatened, it can take steps to protect the witness, such as cancelling the bail of the accused.

This is a significant ruling, as it emphasizes the importance of protecting witnesses in criminal cases. It also serves as a warning to accused persons who attempt to silence witnesses.

Section 256 CrPC: Power to acquit accused cannot be invoked by Executive, Sub-Divisional or District Magistrate under Section 133 CrPC

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Executive, Sub-Divisional or District Magistrate cannot acquit an accused under Section 256 CrPC while invoking powers under Section 133 to 138 CrPC by issuing conditional orders for the prevention of nuisance.

This is an important ruling, as it protects the rights of accused persons. It also clarifies the respective powers of different courts and magistrates.