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

1979 Supreme(SC) 421

A.P.SEN, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi: State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra: Loonkaran Hansraj – Respondent


JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Ss. 120B, 477A and 409 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld or modified to some extent. So far as appellant No. 1 is concerned, who was also accused No. 1 at the trial, his appeal is limited to the question of sentence as also the nature of the offence. The special leave granted to A. 24 is open. Since all these appeals were decided by the High Court by one judgment we also propose to dispose of the appeals by one common judgment. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the courts below and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same over and again.

2. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and have also gone through the record of the case. On a perusal of the record and judgment of the High Court we are clearly of the opinion that these appeals are concluded by findings of facts. It is well settled that this Court in special leave will not interfere with concurrent findings of f



































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