Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Section 482 CrPC- Inherent Powers Cannot Be Invoked To Alter Sentence Imposed By The HC Itself
07 Dec 2019 04:32 pm
The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits, the Supreme Court has observed.
The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the High Court has no power to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC and alter the sentence imposed by it.
In this case, the Trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 419 IPC. The trial court came to the conclusion that the accused had got service on the basis of forged documents depriving a deserving unemployed person of getting such employment and, therefore, according to the trial court, this is not a fit case to grant probation. the trial court imposed punishment under various provisions of IPC for different offences but essentially the accused was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and was to pay a total fine of Rs.2000. The Sessions Court dismissed the Appeal. The High Court, while considering his revision petition, affirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence from one year to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, in a Section 482 CrPC petition filed by Singh, the High Court extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to him for the purpose that the sentence, which has already undergone would not affect service career of the petitioner.
