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

2004 Supreme(Kar) 27

L. MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
MOHAN NAIDU – Respondent


Advocates:
C.V.Sudendra, D.MANJUNATH, M.D.Anuradha

K. RAMANNA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the common judgment dated 24th January, 2002 passed by the 13th additional City Civil Jildge, Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No. 16/1999. Wherefore, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of this revision petitioner and allowed the criminal revision petition No. 52/1999 filed by the respondent-complainant confirming the order of sentence passed by the trial Court, in imposing a fine of Rs. 40. 000/-, ut the compensation awarded to the complainant respondent is enhanced to the extent of the sum of Rs. 35. 000/- and the same was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Wherefore, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the criminal Appeal No. 16/1999, the Revision petitioner accused has come up with this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P. C. mainly on the ground that both the trial Court and the learned Sessions judge have not properly appreciated and analysed the evidence on record by the respondent and both the Courts have not considered the demands made by the respondent -P. W. 1 before the trial Court. It is further averred that the person who has approached the C






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