MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH versus SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS. IN THE MATTER OF:- SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH

MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH versus SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS. IN THE MATTER OF:- SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH

The applicant was not entitled to a backdating of the six months sentence to 03.02.2020 because the detention he underwent was in connection with another case and not during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the contempt case; production before the Court for the purpose of purging did not convert that custody into custody in the contempt proceeding for the purposes of Section 428 Cr.P.C., hence Section 428 did not apply and the sentence commencement is not to be treated as from 03.02.2020.

Parties
Applicant (contemnor No.10): Shivinder Mohan Singh; Non Applicant/respondent: Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited; Respondent: Sameer Gehlaut & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) No.2120 of 2018 (in SLP (c) No.20417 of 2017) / Miscellaneous Application No.1902 of 2022 for Clarification After Conviction and Sentencing
Outcome
Miscellaneous application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 428 Cr.p.c. Set Off of Detention, Commencement Date of Sentence, Production of Accused for Purging Contempt, Distinction Between Custody in Same Case and Custody in Another Case
Criminal Procedure Contempt of Court Judgment Interpretation Section 428 Cr.p.c. Set Off of Detention Commencement Date of Sentence Production of Accused for Purging Contempt Distinction Between Custody in Same Case and Custody in Another Case

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shivinder Mohan Singh

Applicant (contemnor No.10)

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited

Non Applicant/respondent

Sameer Gehlaut & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) No.2120 of 2018 (in SLP (c) No.20417 of 2017) / Miscellaneous Application No.1902 of 2022 for Clarification After Conviction and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the period of detention from 03.02.2020 should be set off against the six months sentence imposed on 22.09.2022 under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether production of the applicant before the Court to afford opportunity to purge contempt converts custody under another case into custody in the contempt case for the purposes of s.428 Cr.P.C.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to have the commencement of sentence backdated to 03.02.2020

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to a backdating of the six months sentence to 03.02.2020 because the detention he underwent was in connection with another case and not during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the contempt case; production before the Court for the purpose of purging did not convert that custody into custody in the contempt proceeding for the purposes of Section 428 Cr.P.C., hence Section 428 did not apply and the sentence commencement is not to be treated as from 03.02.2020.

Court Disposition

Miscellaneous application dismissed.

Orders

  • Contemnor Nos. 9 and 10 are sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment and pay fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each within four weeks from today. In case of default of payment of fine, the contemnors shall undergo further imprisonment of two months.
  • Miscellaneous application No.1902 of 2022 dismissed.