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

2002 Supreme(SC) 339

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN
SIVASURIYAN – Appellant
Versus
THANGAVELU – Respondent


ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE ACCUSED IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IN EXERCISING REVISIONAL POWER AT THE BEHEST OF THE COMPLAINANT. ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 142 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, THE MAGISTRATE TOOK COGNIZANCE, ISSUED PROCESS AND FINALLY DISPOSED OF THE MATTER HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY AND CONVICTING HIM THEREUNDER. FOR SUCH CONVICTION, THE MAGISTRATE SENTENCED HIM TO UNDERGO SIX MONTHS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF RS 5000. AGAINST THE AFORESAID CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, THE ACCUSED MOVED IN APPEAL AND THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE UPHELD THE CONVICTION, BUT MODIFIED THE SENTENCE. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE DIRECTED THAT THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE TILL RISING OF COURT, BUT THE FINE AMOUNT ALREADY DIRECTED WAS AFFIRMED. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THE COMPLAINANT MOVED IN REVISION. THE HIGH COURT IN EXERCISE OF ITS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, IN PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT WHILE AFFIRMING THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT, FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD PAY A COMPENSATION OF RS ONE LAKH UNDER SECTION 357 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL





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