Back
N. V. ANJARIA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
K. Pounammal – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on demand and evidence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant seeks reduction of sentence. (Para 4) |
| 3. reformative and mitigating factors influence sentencing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. prolonged legal proceedings cause mental suffering. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. sentence reduced to time served; fine increased. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria for the respondent-State.
2. This criminal appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against judgment and order dated 4th August, 2010 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2003, whereby the High Court confirmed judgment and order delivered by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) Madurai in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2003 dated 5th November, 2003, convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 7 , Section 13 (2) read section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause in respect of the offence under Section 7 , to undergo rigorous impr
Point of law: commission of offence had taken place in 1968 and the judgment was delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Section 467 and 471 of IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litig....
Sentence can be reduced considering old age of accused.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
