It was held:- '(i) the proceeding of the Advisory Board held on 6-4-83 was a valid proceeding which was attended by five out of seven members of the Advisory Board and the majority of them opined in favour of the premature release of the petitioner. That Writ Petition was decided by this Court on 25th September, 1984. Chapattis made of wheat are usually dried in open spaces and hung from the window grills. And 4 p.Conditions of Detention in the Prisons of Karnataka other indoor games in these not so overcrowded rooms. 21012/83, ILR 19 for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents 2 to 4 to refer his case to the Advisory Board for the District Prison, Mysore, or in the alternative to consider the recommendation of the Advisory Board for premature release. Inspite of the majority opinion in favour of premature release of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner for premature release was not put up before the State Government therefore the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. The majority of the members of the Advisory Board opined in favour of premature release of the petitioner whereas the District and Sessions Judge, Mysore and the Inspector General of Prisons, Karnataka did not opine in favour of premature release of the petitioner.
2.3) After the petitioner became eligible for review of sentence, his case was taken up by the Advisory Board for the District Prison, Mysore, on 6-4-1983 for review of sentence. During the period of trial and after conviction, the petitioner has been on bail for some time and also had been released on parole for some time. Pursuant to the order of convictions and sentences, the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment in the District Prison, Mysore. This Court confirmed the convictions and enhanced the sentence from five years to ten years. Both the appeals were heard and decided together by this Court, on 1st August, 1979. 280 of 1978 and the State also preferred Criminal Appeal No.
2) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of convictions and sentences, the petitioner along with other accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 1) The petitioner along with four other accused was convicted on 18-8-1978 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 324 read with of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No.ġ2 of 1977 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months, one year, 5 years and one year respectively on each of the aforesaid counts. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to release him prematurely. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Government Order dated bearing No.
0 kommentar(er)
