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

2014 Supreme(Kar) 175

N.ANANDA
Sathish Puthran – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate.
For the Respondent: B. Visweswaraiah, HCGP.

Judgment :

1. The appellant (accused) was tried for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, i989.

The learned Special Judge convicted the accused of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Therefore, he is before this court.

3. I have heard Sri. Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel for accused and learned Government Advocate for the State.

4. In view of acquittal of accused for an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there is no need for me to refer 10 the evidence adduced by prosecution in relation to these offences.

5. It is the case of prosecution that accused had taken certain extent of land















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