SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1804

UMESH C.BANERJEE, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN
Murali – Appellant
Versus
State Of T. N. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

The accused is in appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court in affirmation of the finding of guilt under Section 304 Part-I, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. During the course of hearing learned Advocate appearing for the respondent -State, contended that the appeal should be restricted to the question of sentence only. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant however, contended that question of treating the appeal in any restricted manner does not and cannot arise by reason of subsequent grant of leave without attaching any condition thereto. The records depict that on 20th March, 1998, this Court directed issuance of notice limited to the question of sentence only. Subsequently, however, after about eight months, the matter was placed in the list for hearing but by reason of the objection this Court was pleased to grant special leave in the matter. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeals contended that once the leave has been grantedthe matter is open for all the issues to be agitated otherwise the Court would have specified in the order itself while granting leave. Reliance however












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top