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

2014 Supreme(Bom) 918

A.I.S.CHEEMA
Tatyarao – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant:Nitin K. Chaudhari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.D. Godbharle A.P.P.

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. for Respondent, finally at the admission stage.

2. This Revision has been filed against the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”). The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.8), Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.3625 of 2001, convicted the present Applicant under Section 279 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. also to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused/Applicant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to injured complainant, Dr. Babu Nathaji More. In Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2009 the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad partly allowed the Appeal. Conviction of Applicant was maintained and direction regarding imprisonment was modified so as to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 of I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for two months under Section 337 of I.P.C. Remaining order of the trial Court was maintained.

3. In nutshel











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